State ex rel. Natl. Lime & Stone Co. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Slip Opinion)
97 N.E.3d 404
| Ohio | 2017Background
- National Lime sought expedited annexation of 224.257 acres in Marion County, Ohio; Norfolk Southern (railroad) holds two narrow adjacent strips through the property conveyed by 1892 and 1896 deeds in fee.
- Annexation under R.C. 709.023(E) requires signatures of all "owners" as defined in R.C. 709.02(E), but that definition excepts "any railroad... rights-of-way held in fee, by easement, or by dedication and acceptance."
- National Lime did not obtain Norfolk's signature, treating the railroad parcels as exempt railroad rights-of-way; county commissioners denied the petition, finding Norfolk an "owner" and that the railroad land severed contiguity with the city.
- National Lime petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the commissioners to approve the annexation; the court of appeals dismissed, holding Norfolk was an "owner."
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a fee-owned strip used as railroad right-of-way falls within the statutory exception and whether National Lime met the statutory annexation conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a railroad that holds land in fee is an "owner" under R.C. 709.02(E) (i.e., is Norfolk required to sign the petition?) | The phrase "railroad right-of-way held in fee" describes the land use (railroad right-of-way) followed by manners of holding (in fee, by easement, etc.); thus a fee-owned railroad strip is exempt and Norfolk is not an owner. | "Right-of-way" means a right of passage (an easement-like interest); because Norfolk holds a freehold (fee), it is an owner whose consent is required. | The Court held the statutory phrase describes the strip of land used as railroad right-of-way (and its accessories), whether held in fee or otherwise; Norfolk's parcels are railroad rights-of-way held in fee and thus fall within the exception — Norfolk is not an "owner." |
| Whether the parcels at issue qualify as "rights-of-way" (including accessories) or are separate non-right-of-way fee parcels (affecting owner status) | The 60-ft track strip and adjacent 75-ft strip (for spur, stock pens, scale, shelter) are roadbed and accessories and thus both are railroad rights-of-way. | The 75-ft parcel was purchased for structures (stock pens, scale, shelter, station) and is not a roadbed/accessory right-of-way; therefore it is not exempt. | The Court held both parcels constituted a railroad right-of-way held in fee (including accessories), so both fall within the R.C. 709.02(E) exception. |
| Whether National Lime satisfied all statutory annexation conditions (contiguity, acreage, services, no creation of isolated unincorporated area, road maintenance, etc.) | National Lime contended it met all R.C. 709.023(E) requirements (12.5% contiguity including railroad land, acreage under 500 acres, city services/zoning agreement, etc.). | Commissioners argued the railroad parcel severed contiguity and that Norfolk's missing signature precluded approval. | The Court found National Lime satisfied each statutory condition, including at least 5% contiguous boundary, and that commissioners had a ministerial duty to approve. |
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel approval | National Lime sought mandamus under R.C. 709.023(G) when statutory conditions were met and commissioners refused. | Commissioners relied on their denial and the need for railroad consent. | The Court issued a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to approve the annexation because statutory prerequisites were met and the commissioners had a clear legal duty to grant it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U.S. 1 (1891) (recognizes dual meanings of "right-of-way": use/right vs. the strip of land occupied by railroad).
- Butler Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 262 (2006) (analyzed whether fee owners of land underlying roadway easement are "owners" for annexation purposes).
- Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Wachter, 70 Ohio St. 113 (1904) (discusses relationships between easement and underlying fee interests).
- McCotter v. Barnes, 247 N.C. 480 (1958) (recognizes dual meanings of "right-of-way").
- Quinn v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 256 Mich. 143 (1931) (discusses right-of-way as land occupied by railroad).