2019 Ohio 3258
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Relator Steven Armatas alleged neighbors violated a Plain Township zoning ordinance and asked Zoning Director Thomas Ferrara to find a violation; Ferrara orally advised no violation.
- Armatas initially filed a mandamus petition (Oct. 14, 2016) seeking enforcement; this court dismissed because an appeal to the zoning board was an adequate remedy at law.
- Armatas appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Armatas then pursued an administrative appeal to the Plain Township Board of Zoning Appeals, which refused to hear it as untimely.
- Armatas filed a second mandamus petition seeking (1) an order requiring Ferrara to reduce his oral decision to writing and (2) an order requiring the zoning board to hear the appeal once a written decision issued.
- Respondents moved for summary judgment; the court concluded the claims were barred by res judicata or moot and granted summary judgment for respondents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Armatas can compel Ferrara to reduce his oral decision to writing via mandamus | Ferrara’s failure to issue a written decision deprived Armatas of an administrative record and relief; mandamus should compel a written decision | Issue could have been raised in the first mandamus action; res judicata bars relitigation | Barred by res judicata — claim could have been raised previously; summary judgment for respondents |
| Whether the zoning board must be ordered to hear Armatas’s appeal after a written decision issues | Board must hear the administrative appeal once a written decision exists | Hearing request depends on obtaining the writ against Ferrara; without that, the board claim is moot | Moot — conditioned on a writ that will not issue; summary judgment for respondents |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St.3d 245 (2000) (res judicata is a complete bar to subsequent actions on the same claim)
- Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176 (1994) (explaining the scope of privity for res judicata)
- State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan, 91 Ohio St.3d 331 (2001) (judgment in a mandamus action is conclusive on claims that were or might have been litigated)