2022 Ohio 1236
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Appellant Darlene Pride owned a double-family dwelling that suffered a large fire in September 2020. City inspectors (fire, building, housing) found severe pre- and post-fire structural defects and concluded the building was unsafe and an emergency raze was required.
- The city issued a Notice of Code Violation and an Emergency Demolition Order; Pride appealed to the Cleveland Heights Nuisance Abatement Board of Review (NABR). A virtual NABR hearing occurred; Pride presented only an architect as a witness and did not show efforts to remedy conditions during the 120-day prehearing period.
- The WebEx hearing recording was corrupted and could not be transcribed; NABR later issued written findings and denied Pride’s appeal, upholding the emergency demolition as reasonable and finding a nuisance.
- Pride sought review in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. Chapter 2506; the trial court affirmed the NABR decision and Pride did not obtain a stay, so the property was demolished on June 14, 2021.
- Pride appealed to the Eighth District raising three assignments: (1) the demolition order was unlawful/unconstitutional and unsupported by evidence; (2) city council was required to declare the property a nuisance before razing; (3) the common pleas court erred by not conducting a hearing to supplement the missing NABR transcript.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of challenge to demolition | Pride: demolition was improper and unsupported; relief should reverse order | City: Pride failed to obtain stay; property already razed so no effectual relief available | Appeal on demolition issue is moot; any damages claim must be pursued separately |
| Whether city council needed to declare nuisance before razing | Pride: CHCO 553.03(b) requires council declaration prior to raze | City: CHCO 553.11 emergency exception allows raze without prior council action when emergency exists; NABR found emergency | Issue waived at NABR; even on plain-error review, emergency exception applies — no error |
| Whether court erred by not holding a hearing to supplement NABR record | Pride: WebEx transcript corrupted; missing cross-examination evidence could change outcome; court should have supplemented record | City: Record included original papers, photos, hearing minutes, findings; Pride did not move under R.C. 2506.03 to introduce additional evidence | No error — Pride failed to pursue R.C. 2506.03 remedy or request a supplemental hearing; she did not show likely change in outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910) (an appeal is moot if no effectual relief can be granted)
- Dvorak v. Mun. Civil Serv. Comm., 46 Ohio St.2d 99, 346 N.E.2d 157 (1976) (reviewing court is confined to administrative transcript unless R.C. 2506.03 conditions are shown)
- Franklin Twp. v. Marble Cliff, 4 Ohio App.3d 213, 447 N.E.2d 765 (1982) (to obtain supplemental evidence under R.C. 2506.03, appellant must show a reasonable likelihood the evidence would change the outcome)