State ex rel. Jeffers v. Athens Cty. Commrs.
2016 Ohio 8119
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Richard Jeffers owns ~530 acres in Athens County; in 2004 the county voted to vacate two public roads (Jeffers Road/Red Lane) that provided access to two of his tracts, potentially landlocking them.
- Jeffers sued, seeking a writ of mandamus under Ohio R.C. Chapter 163 to force appropriation/damages proceedings and later added 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (constitutional) claims for money damages.
- After earlier appeals, a bench trial in Oct. 2012 produced conflicting testimony about signs, hay bales and a locked gate placed on the roads and about who placed them; Jeffers testified economic harm (lost subdivision and sales opportunities).
- The trial court denied the mandamus relief, finding no pro tanto taking (no substantial or unreasonable interference) based on lack of clear-and-convincing proof.
- The trial court later dismissed Jeffers’ remaining § 1983 claims on issue-preclusion grounds and denied leave to amend to add retaliation/Ex Post Facto–related claims.
- On appeal, the appellate court affirmed denial of mandamus and denial of leave to amend, but reversed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims because the § 1983 claims require a lower burden of proof than the mandamus action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jeffers) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Trustees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental conduct amounted to a pro tanto taking requiring mandamus (R.C. Ch.163) | Interferences (signs, gate, hay bales, public statements, lobbying/delay) substantially/unreasonably interfered with use and marketability of the land | Evidence did not prove county placed obstructions or that access/use was substantially or unreasonably impaired; harms speculative | Court: No pro tanto taking; mandamus denied (no clear-and-convincing proof) |
| Whether the trial court correctly dismissed § 1983 constitutional claims under issue preclusion/res judicata | Mandamus required proof by clear-and-convincing evidence; § 1983 claims only require preponderance — res judicata/collateral estoppel should not bar relitigation under a lesser standard | Prior adjudication resolved the factual question of taking; issue preclusion bars relitigation | Court: Reversed dismissal — issue preclusion did not bar § 1983 claims because the quantum of proof differs (mandamus: clear-and-convincing; § 1983: preponderance) |
| Whether denial of leave to amend (to add retaliation and Ex Post Facto–related § 1983 claims) was an abuse of discretion | Amendment was necessary to address alleged lobbying/delay that worsened damages; court should allow leave under Civ.R.15 | Motion to amend was untimely and the proposed claims were barred (Noerr-Pennington, not a proper damages vehicle for an Ex Post Facto claim), and amendment would prejudice defendants | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend; claims untimely and the court need not allow amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372 (Ohio 2005) (mandamus is proper to compel appropriation proceedings when an involuntary taking is alleged)
- State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Heights, 95 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 2002) (same principle regarding mandamus to pursue compensation for takings)
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio 2011) (mandamus standard of proof requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Lucas v. Carney, 167 Ohio St. 416 (Ohio 1960) (broad protection of property rights beyond fee simple ownership)
- Trafalgar Corp. v. Miami County Bd. of Comm’rs, 519 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2008) (federal court must give preclusive effect to state-court judgments under state law; issue preclusion can bar takings claims decided in state court)
- San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2005) (a party who effectively asks a state court to resolve a federal issue may be precluded from relitigating it in federal court)
- Ohio State Bar Ass’n v. Weaver, 41 Ohio St.2d 97 (Ohio 1975) (res judicata applies only where parties, issues, and quantum of proof are identical)