Putnam Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Weis
2019 Ohio 3720
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Putnam County Commissioners widened County Road 5 in 2012; construction began May 31, 2012 and finished in October 2012, but procedural defects led to refiling of appropriation cases in 2018.
- Commissioners refiled 13 appropriation actions after a unanimous resolution; they attached 2011 appraisals and offers to the 2018 petitions.
- Two matters went to jury trial (Weis: permanent easement of .0298 acres; Maag: .6681 acres).
- The trial court consolidated the cases for trial under Civ.R. 42(A), denied landowners’ continuance to obtain new appraisals, and set the date of take as May 31, 2012.
- Juries awarded compensation matching the commissioners’ appraisals; landowners appealed, raising five assignments of error (statutory notice/appraisals, date of take, consolidation, conditioning continuance on waiver, and exclusion of a rebuttal witness).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appropriation petitions should be dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 163.04/163.041 and 163.59(E) (notice, good‑faith offer, updated appraisal, unanimous resolution) | Notice and offers were defective; appraisals were stale (>2 years) and not updated; unanimous resolution not attached to refiled complaints | Landowners received Oct. 20, 2017 notice with appraisal/offer; unanimous resolution existed and owners knew of it; 2011 appraisals were appropriate because valuation date is 2012 | Court: notices and offers complied with statutes; no new appraisals required given 2012 date of take; unanimous resolution in record — assignment overruled |
| Proper "date of take" for valuation | Valuation should be fixed at a later date (not May 31, 2012) because earlier entry was effectively an "illegal take" and unfair to owners | Date of take is when government entered the property (May 31, 2012); under Olrich valuation is at time of trial unless possession occurred earlier, in which case valuation is as of taking | Court: date of take = May 31, 2012; apply Olrich — assignment overruled |
| Consolidation of the appropriation trials | Each parcel/owner has distinct interests and trial rights; R.C.163.09(E) contemplates separate determinations absent consent | Court can consolidate under Civ.R. 42(A) for common questions of law/fact and judicial economy; R.C.163.09(E) does not bar consolidation without consent (Kleines) | Court: consolidation proper; cases presented sequentially to same jury to avoid confusion — assignment overruled |
| Whether denial of continuance conditioned on waiver of separate trials was improper ("quid pro quo") | Trial court improperly required waiver of right to separate trials as condition for continuance; coercive and reversible error | Court denied continuance for lack of diligence in securing appraiser and scheduling constraints; no constitutional right to separate trials; no impermissible quid pro quo | Court: no reversible error; denial within discretion and not an unconstitutional conditioning — assignment overruled |
| Exclusion of rebuttal witness Robert Hunt | Hunt was a rebuttal witness and need not have been predisclosed; exclusion deprived owners of rebuttal evidence | Hunt was testifying as an expert offering a new valuation methodology and should have been disclosed in plaintiffs’ case‑in‑chief; Phung inapplicable to undisclosed expert opinion | Court: exclusion appropriate; Hunt presented expert methodology that should have been disclosed earlier — assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Director of Highways v. Olrich, 5 Ohio St.2d 70 (1966) (property taken prior to trial is valued as of the time of taking)
- In re Appropriation for Highway Purposes, 167 Ohio St. 463 (1958) (approach to valuation in appropriation actions)
- Nichols v. City of Cleveland, 104 Ohio St. 19 (1922) (authority on valuation/date‑of‑taking principles)
- Director of Highways v. Kleines, 38 Ohio St.2d 317 (1974) (trial court may consolidate appropriation cases under Civ.R. 42(A) without parties’ consent)
- Becos v. Masheter, 15 Ohio St.2d 15 (1968) (diminution in value caused by governmental action may affect date of valuation in limited circumstances)
- Phung v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 408 (1994) (rules on rebuttal evidence generally)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)