2020 Ohio 276
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- The dispute concerns ~134 acres in Newark, Ohio containing the Hopewell "Octagon Earthworks." OHC owns the land; Moundbuilders Country Club Company (MBCC) has leased and operated a private golf course there since 1910 under a lease running to 2078.
- OHC and MBCC had a 2003 public-access agreement allowing limited public access (an observation platform year-round and full access on restricted days).
- In early 2018 OHC obtained two appraisals: a Weiler appraisal valuing the leasehold at $1,750,000 and a Koon appraisal valuing it at $800,000. OHC sent MBCC a written "notice of intent to acquire and good faith offer" for $800,000 on August 28, 2018 and later filed an appropriation petition on November 28, 2018.
- MBCC challenged jurisdiction (arguing OHC did not negotiate in good faith), necessity (arguing the public-use and preservation goals could be met without appropriation), and asserted counterclaims for breach of lease/contract; the trial court dismissed the counterclaims and after a necessity hearing granted appropriation and set a later jury trial to determine compensation.
- MBCC appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) OHC’s offer was not made in good faith (jurisdictional defect); (2) the taking was not necessary; and (3) the trial court improperly dismissed MBCC’s counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OHC) | Defendant's Argument (MBCC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good-faith negotiation / subject-matter jurisdiction | OHC relied on a state-certified appraisal (Koon) and timely offered $800,000 > complied with R.C. 163.04 | OHC hid a higher appraisal ($1,750,000), misled MBCC, and denied opportunity to accompany appraisers; offer was in bad faith | Court credited OHC's use of the Koon appraisal and CEO's explanation; $800,000 was a good-faith offer; good-faith requirement satisfied; assignment overruled |
| Necessity of the taking | Taking needed to restore, remove golf-course improvements, open site to public, and pursue World Heritage nomination; resolution created a rebuttable presumption of necessity | MBCC: preservation/education can be achieved without taking; MBCC operates and preserves site; economic/community harms and OHC's stewardship of other sites show taking unnecessary | Court found ample admissible evidence to support necessity; agency resolution gave presumption; taking for public purpose upheld; assignment overruled |
| Dismissal of counterclaims | Appropriation is a special statutory proceeding; counterclaims that collaterally attack appropriation are not permitted | MBCC contended its declaratory-judgment and breach claims should proceed | Appellate court held the challenge to dismissal was premature pending final compensation determination; appeal on those claims must await final order; assignment held premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (heightened scrutiny of statutes restricting eminent domain; necessity requirement)
- Pokorny v. Local 310, Intern. Hod Carriers, 35 Ohio App.2d 178 (1973) (leasehold interest treated as private property for takings)
- Dublin v. Beatley, 70 N.E.3d 976 (2016) (appropriation is a special statutory proceeding; strict construction against agency)
- RMW Ventures, L.L.C. v. Stover Family Invest., L.L.C., 161 Ohio App.3d 819 (2005) (eminent domain power and public-use principles)
- Wadsworth v. Yannerilla, 170 Ohio App.3d 264 (2006) (necessity requires public purpose, not immediate physical necessity)
- Sunoco Pipeline L.P. v. Teter, 63 N.E.3d 160 (2016) (necessity means reasonably convenient or useful to the public)