State ex rel. Solid Rock Ministries Internatl. v. Monroe
2022 Ohio 431
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Solid Rock Ministries and its pastor, Bishop, own adjacent properties along Shaker Creek in Monroe; BEI owns upstream property across I-75 where Shaker Creek crosses its land.
- BEI installed an unpermitted culvert (2015–2016) and later placed an earthen berm and limestone riprap in the FEMA-designated floodway, after which Solid Rock and Bishop experienced new flooding beginning July 2017.
- The City of Monroe enforces floodplain development through MCO Chapter 1446 and designates a floodplain administrator (Brock) responsible to inspect, enforce, and issue permits/violations.
- Solid Rock sued for a writ of mandamus (Dec. 2019) to compel the City to enforce MCO Chapter 1446, remove the culvert, and restore preconstruction topography; the culvert was removed during litigation.
- An expert (Gramza) produced a Flood Impact Analysis concluding the culvert, berm, and riprap obstructed the floodway; the trial court found the culvert claim moot but granted mandamus compelling the City to issue violation notices to BEI for the earthen berm and limestone riprap.
- The city appealed, arguing the trial court awarded relief beyond the pleadings, improperly admitted expert testimony, and wrongly compelled issuance of violation notices because the floodplain administrator did not abuse his discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court granted relief not pleaded (berm & riprap) | Complaints broadly alleged bank changes, fill, and other floodway alterations; Civ.R. 8 notice pleading and liberal construction permit relief | City: berm/riprap were first presented at pretrial; Solid Rock never amended complaint under Civ.R. 15(B); relief was beyond the pleadings | Court: complaints sufficiently alleged bank changes and fill; City had notice through discovery and did not seek dismissal — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Gramza’s testimony should have been excluded (motion in limine) | Expert testimony was relevant to floodway alterations and impacts | City: testimony irrelevant to the amended complaint and should be excluded | Court: trial court tentatively denied limine; City failed to object at trial or preserve error — waiver |
| Whether mandamus could issue for limestone riprap (abuse of discretion) | Brock never made an official determination or inspected; MCO requires inspection and enforcement; riprap is "fill" placed without a permit | City: Brock had discretion and reasonably concluded maintenance, not violation; mandamus cannot control administrative discretion | Court: relators proved riprap was placed in floodway without permit and Brock had not exercised his duties; mandamus proper to compel issuance of violation notice |
| Whether the earthen berm was an unauthorized use requiring a violation notice | Berm is man-made, entirely in the floodway, visible since at least 1994, blocks floodway storage, and lacks any permit — City must act | City: no proof when berm was constructed; could be preexisting nonconforming use; ordinance should not apply | Court: evidence showed berm in floodway, no permit, and Brock never inspected or officially determined compliance; mandamus proper to compel issuance of violation notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Controls, Inc. v. Langham, 70 Ohio St.3d 512 (1994) (Civ.R. 8 requires only a short, plain statement of circumstances entitling party to relief)
- MacDonald v. Bernard, 1 Ohio St.3d 85 (1982) (pleadings construed liberally to do substantial justice)
- State ex rel. Millington v. Weir, 60 Ohio App.2d 348 (1978) (mandamus proceedings are subject to Civ.R. 8 pleading principles)
- State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (1986) (motions in limine are tentative; objections must be made at trial to preserve error)
- State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (ruling on limine does not preserve record for appeal)
- Hodges v. Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 1 (1992) (elements for mandamus and limits on controlling discretionary acts)
- State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247 (1997) (mandamus cannot control properly exercised discretion but can compel exercise of discretion)
- State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy, 67 Ohio St.2d 342 (1981) (mandamus compels performance of present existing duty)
- State ex rel. Levin v. Schremp, 73 Ohio St.3d 733 (1995) (adequate remedy at law must be full, complete, and available to preclude mandamus)
- State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (1998) (mandamus may lie where harm stems from failure of public officers to perform clear duties, not merely private torts)