State ex rel. Miami Overlook, Inc. v. Germantown
2011 Ohio 3419
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Miami Overlook, Inc. purchased a 16.5 acre Germantown parcel with a 50,000 sq ft building (Camp Miami) in 1997, intending to market to developers.
- The property was zoned R-3 (multi-family) at purchase; in 1998 Germantown began considering zoning changes affecting the site.
- In 2000, Germantown enacted Ordinance 00-30, replacing part of the zoning code and publishing a notice that failed to specify time, place, or year of the hearing.
- Miami Overlook learned the property had been rezoned from R-3 to R-1 in 2000; in 2005 it sought rezoning back toward R-3 and filed administrative and then judicial challenges.
- Miami Overlook filed a declaratory judgment/mandamus action in November 2007 claiming procedural defects under R.C. 713.12 and related relief; a prior 2005 action was dismissed.
- The trial court granted Germantown summary judgment, holding procedural claims time-barred and that mandamus (to compel appropriation) was barred; Miami Overlook appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural defects under R.C. 713.12 are time-barred | Miami Overlook claims timely under discovery. | Germantown is barred by R.C. 713.121 two-year limit. | Barred; summary judgment affirmed on procedural claim. |
| Whether mandamus relief is time-barred | Mandamus timely under six-year period to compel appropriation. | Time-barred under applicable statutes; improperly pleaded. | Time-barred; four-year limit applies, action barred. |
| Whether R.C. 713.12 and its limitations are unconstitutional | Discovery tolling would preserve claims; Article I, Section 16. | Statute serves gatekeeping function; no tolling; constitutional as applied. | Constitutionality upheld; discovery tolling rejected. |
| Whether there exists a private right of action for regulatory taking | Challenging zoning via takings framework; mandamus sought to compel appropriation. | No private right of action for regulatory taking exists; mandamus is proper. | No private right of action; claims barred or resolved via other means. |
| Whether the court’s disposition in effect deprives the owner of property rights | Trial court ignored merits by applying statute of limitations. | Actions are barred by limitations; merits moot. | assignment of error overruled; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Heights, 96 Ohio St.3d 379 (2002-Ohio-4905) (delineates takings vs. damages and limits of immunity)
- State ex rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002-Ohio-6716) (mandamus to compel appropriation; six-year statute applies)
- Pratte v. Stewart, 125 Ohio St.3d 473 (2010-Ohio-1860) (limits discovery tolling; right-to-remedy analysis for 16)
- Wintersville v. Argo Sales Co., 35 Ohio St.2d 148 (1968) (earlier discussion of notice and procedural validity)
- Smith v. New York Central R.R. Co., 122 Ohio St. 45 (1930) (emergency enactment timing and retroactivity of limitations changes)
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (2008-Ohio-546) (preserves article I rights and limitations on remedy)