State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 2973

Sept 2016: Armatas complained to Plain Township zoning inspector Thomas Ferrara that a neighbor’s 20-foot trees violated an 8-foot hedge-height limit; Ferrara said the trees were not a hedge.
Oct 2016: Armatas sued in mandamus in the Fifth District to compel enforcement; the court dismissed because he had an adequate remedy at law (an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals). His appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was dismissed for failure to file a brief.
Oct 2018: Armatas filed an administrative appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which dismissed it as untimely under the township’s 20-day appeal rule.
Jan 2019: Armatas filed a second mandamus seeking (1) an order requiring Ferrara to issue his Sept 2016 decision in writing (to trigger the appeal clock) and (2) an order directing the Board to hear and issue a written decision on his appeal.
The Fifth District granted summary judgment for Ferrara and the Board, holding res judicata barred the claim against Ferrara and the Board claims were contingent/moot. Armatas appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does res judicata bar Armatas’s claim against Ferrara?	2016 action was not a final judgment on the merits; written-decision claim could not reasonably have been raised before.	2016 dismissal was a final judgment on the merits as to lack of adequate remedy at law; written-decision relief could have been sought then.	Res judicata applies; claim against Ferrara is barred.
Are the parties the same for res judicata purposes?	2016 suit named Ferrara and the Board of Trustees; this suit names Ferrara and the Board of Zoning Appeals—different parties.	The Fifth District applied res judicata only to Ferrara’s claim; presence of the Board here does not prevent preclusion of the claim against Ferrara.	Res judicata properly applied to Armatas’s claim against Ferrara.
Does a change-in-facts exception save Armatas’s second action?	Facts changed after the 2016 decision, creating a new material issue that escapes res judicata.	No material factual change; Armatas is advancing a new legal theory to revive the prior dispute.	No material change shown; exception does not apply.
Are Armatas’s claims against the Board of Zoning Appeals justiciable?	Seeks writ directing the Board to hear an appeal and issue a written decision.	Relief is contingent on a writ compelling Ferrara to issue a written decision, which Armatas is not entitled to.	Claims against the Board dismissed as contingent/moot.

Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary-judgment standard)
Esber Beverage Co. v. Labatt USA Operating Co., L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 71 (2013) (de novo review of summary-judgment rulings)
Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106 (2006) (elements of res judicata)
Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60 (1990) (plaintiff must present every ground for relief in the first action)
State ex rel. Arcadia Acres v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 123 Ohio St.3d 54 (2009) (what constitutes a judgment on the merits for res judicata)
Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon, 61 Ohio St.2d 42 (1980) (change-in-facts exception to res judicata/collateral estoppel)