State ex rel. Marcum v. Florence Twp.
2017 Ohio 6916
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Florence Township and Erie County performed a drainage project that substantially increased water flow onto Willie and Millie Marcum’s land, making eight acres unusable.
- In 2012 the Marcums sued (Marcum I) alleging negligence, inverse condemnation, and diminution in value; they later added a claim for injunctive relief.
- The trial court dismissed the inverse condemnation, diminution, and injunctive claims without prejudice as the court indicated those claims were properly pursued by mandamus to compel appropriation; the negligence claim proceeded.
- Erie County and Florence Township obtained summary judgment on the negligence claim in June 2013; the entries disposing of defendants included language dismissing claims with prejudice, and the Marcums did not appeal those judgments.
- Eleven months later the Marcums filed a separate mandamus action (Marcum II) seeking to compel appropriation proceedings; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing res judicata (and other defenses).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants in Marcum II; the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the mandamus action was barred by claim preclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marcum II (mandamus to compel appropriation) is barred by res judicata | Marcum argues the inverse-condemnation and diminution claims in Marcum I were dismissed without prejudice, so a later mandamus action is not precluded | Defendants argue the earlier suit produced a final judgment on the merits as to the transaction, so any claims or theories that could have been raised then (including mandamus) are barred | Court held res judicata (claim preclusion) bars Marcum II because both suits arise from the same transaction, involve the same parties, and the earlier action produced a final judgment on the merits |
| Whether the trial court improperly converted dismissals without prejudice into dismissals with prejudice | Marcum contends the trial court’s initial dismissal was without prejudice and subsequent judgment language cannot be read to change that | Defendants contend that even if certain counts were labeled without prejudice, the final judgment disposing of the negligence claim constituted a final adjudication that bars subsequent litigation of related claims | Court ruled labeling is irrelevant for res judicata: final judgment on the negligence claim barred subsequent mandamus claims arising from the same transaction |
| Whether Marcum’s delay in filing mandamus preserved their right to later litigate mandamus | Marcum argues they delayed to see if relief would be obtained in Marcum I for judicial economy | Defendants argue plaintiffs could have amended, filed mandamus concurrently, or dismissed and refiled; delay does not overcome claim-preclusion policy against successive litigation | Court found delay does not overcome claim preclusion; alternate theories must be raised when the transaction is litigated |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on other defenses (statute of limitations, sovereign immunity) | Marcum challenged preclusion only; argued no final judgment on merits | Defendants also asserted statute of limitations and Erie County asserted sovereign immunity as alternative grounds | Court affirmed summary judgment on res judicata; alternative defenses were noted but the decision rested on claim preclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (9th Dist. 1989) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (elements for awarding summary judgment)
- O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 2007) (description of res judicata and its components)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (claim preclusion bars successive actions based on same transaction despite different theories)
- State ex rel. Mora v. Wilkinson, 105 Ohio St.3d 272 (Ohio 2005) (res judicata applies to mandamus actions)