State ex rel. Lillis v. Summit, 2017 Ohio 1539

Background

Owners (Lillis and Horvaths) owned duplex property in Coventry Township; severe flooding from Brewster Creek in July 2011 caused collapse and demolition of one building.
Owners sued multiple public entities alleging failure to maintain storm-water systems and an uncompensated physical taking by flooding; by trial only City of Akron remained and only the mandamus (inverse-condemnation) claim to compel Akron to institute appropriation proceedings.
Akron moved to dismiss for lack of standing/redressability because the property lies outside Akron’s municipal limits and, it argued, Akron lacks authority to appropriate the land under the Ohio Constitution and statutes.
The trial court dismissed for lack of standing, concluding municipalities generally lack authority to appropriate property outside their limits for alleged takings and that R.C. 719.01’s enumerated purposes did not cover the Owners’ claim.
On appeal the Ninth District treated the motion as a Civ.R. 12(C) judgment-on-the-pleadings review and limited its review to the redressability prong of standing.
The appellate court reversed, holding the complaint alleged a redressable claim because R.C. 719.01(J) ("sewers, drains, ditches…") can encompass storm-water systems and flood-control purposes, which can authorize out-of-limits appropriations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Redressability / standing to seek mandamus for inverse condemnation	Owners: Akron can be compelled to appropriate because the physical taking by flooding can be remedied by appropriation under R.C. 719.01 (esp. subsections I, J, M)	Akron: Owners’ property is outside city limits; Akron lacks authority (inherent or statutory) to appropriate that land for an alleged taking, so relief is not redressable	Held: Plaintiffs pleaded a redressable claim — R.C. 719.01(J) includes storm-water/sewer/drain purposes and can support out-of-limits appropriation for flood-control; standing (redressability) satisfied
Applicability of Clifton and Moore precedent	Owners: Clifton/Moore are limited to regulatory takings and do not bar a mandamus claim for a physical taking by flooding	Akron: Clifton and Moore show municipalities cannot be compelled to appropriate property outside their limits in these contexts	Held: Clifton/Moore do not bar this claim — those cases involved regulatory takings; this case alleges a physical taking, so Clifton’s narrow holding does not control
Statutory authority under R.C. 719.01(I) (watercourse)	Owners: Brewster Creek largely runs through Akron and R.C. 719.01(I) might authorize appropriation	Akron: Owners did not plead Akron’s ownership/authority over the watercourse; facts not pled	Held: R.C. 719.01(I) not sufficiently alleged in complaint; redressability under (I) not established on pleadings
Reliance on constitutional / riparian rights arguments	Owners: constitutional and riparian law supports takings claim	Akron: these issues were not raised below and concern injury, not redressability	Held: Court did not reach constitutional/riparian arguments because redressability was satisfied under R.C. 719.01(J)

Key Cases Cited

Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287 (2012) (addresses standing to compel appropriation for alleged regulatory takings where affected property lies outside the municipality)
Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (limits Clifton to its facts and cautions against broad application beyond regulatory-taking context)
State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cincinnati, 125 Ohio St.3d 385 (2010) (mandamus is appropriate to compel appropriation where involuntary taking is alleged)
State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (2011) (defines inverse condemnation and distinguishes regulatory vs. physical takings)
State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (standards for deciding motions under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and Civ.R. 12(C))
Britt v. Columbus, 38 Ohio St.2d 1 (1974) (discusses municipal inherent authority under home-rule powers)