State Ex Rel. Lee v. Vill. of Plain City
102 N.E.3d 10
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Frank and Twila Lee purchased a lot in a Plain City subdivision; construction revealed a storm sewer and related structures very near their home’s foundation despite earlier plans showing a different alignment.
- Manor Homes relocated the active sewer with Plain City’s approval, left the old sewer in place, and installed protective collars/dams partly on the Lees’ lot and partly within a public utility easement.
- The Lees sued Manor Homes in federal court (2006) alleging code violations, defective construction, trespass, and misrepresentations about a detention pond; Manor Homes impleaded Plain City.
- The Lees, Manor Homes, and Plain City settled the federal case in 2009 by executing a broad mutual release covering known and unknown claims.
- In 2014 the Lees sued Plain City in state court seeking mandamus (takings/compensation), declaratory relief (ownership of sewers/dams), and nuisance injunctions related to the detention pond.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Plain City, holding the 2009 settlement released the Lees’ claims; the court also made collateral observations on ownership of sewer infrastructure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus/takings claim is barred by the 2009 mutual release | Lees: claim accrued later (per Doner) or remained viable because village hadn’t accepted the sewer; thus not released | Plain City: Lees knew of the sewer and released all known/unknown claims in the settlement | Release barred mandamus; settlement language precluded the claim |
| Whether declaratory judgment (ownership of sewer/dams) is barred by the release | Lees: changed facts/events after settlement created an independent need for declaration | Plain City: ownership issues existed in 2006 and were within settlement scope | Release barred declaratory claim; court’s dismissal affirmed |
| Whether nuisance claim re: detention pond survived the release because conditions worsened post-settlement | Lees: pond conditions worsened after 2009, creating a new nuisance | Plain City: pond and related complaints were already part of federal litigation and are covered by the broad release | Release barred nuisance claim despite alleged worsening conditions |
| Whether statute-of-limitations defense to mandamus required reversal | Lees: argued SOL defense was erroneous because claim accrued later | Plain City: SOL or release precludes claim | Court found SOL argument moot after affirming release-based dismissal |
| Whether trial court erred by commenting on ownership (declaring village owned sewer) after dismissing declaratory claim | Lees: court could not dismiss yet pronounce ownership and other facts | Plain City: comments were incidental and not reversible | Court: such statements were dicta; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (2011) (continuing trespass/flooding decisions and accrual of takings claims)
- State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Heights, 95 Ohio St.3d 59 (2002) (mandamus principles)
- Norwood v. Sheen, 126 Ohio St. 482 (1933) (municipal control/easement principles)
- Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374 (1997) (settlement agreements create contracts)
- In re All Kelley & Ferraro Asbestos Cases, 104 Ohio St.3d 605 (2004) (contract construction reviewed de novo)
- Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (1989) (clear contract language need not be construed beyond its terms)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (summary judgment standard)