State ex rel. Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Village of Lodi
30 N.E.3d 934
Ohio2015Background
- Sunset Estate and Meadowview own mobile-home parks in village of Lodi, located in R-2 zones that prohibit such parks.
- The parks predate the R-2 zoning and are legal nonconforming uses under R.C. 713.15.
- Lodi Zoning Code 1280.05(a) declares six months of nonuse as conclusive evidence of abandonment, with a mobile-home exclusion stating absence or removal constitutes discontinuance.
- The provision led to disconnecting water/electric service for vacant lots, causing lost rental opportunities and claimed property rights losses.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lodi; the Ninth District reversed, finding the ordinance unconstitutional on its face; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court holds that the final sentence of 1280.05(a) is unconstitutional but severable, affirming remand for appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the last sentence of 1280.05(a) is unconstitutional under due process. | Sunset/Meadowview contend it deprives vested property rights and lacks rational relation. | Lodi argues the provision furthers legitimate goals of preserving property values and development. | Unconstitutional; severable from the rest of the ordinance. |
| Whether the unconstitutional sentence is severable from the rest of 1280.05(a). | Severability should preserve the remainder of the ordinance's effect. | Severance should not alter the ordinance's essential purpose. | Yes, the final sentence is severable; remainder can stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (zoning as a valid police-power regulation with presumption of validity)
- Chapman v. Akron, 160 Ohio St. 382 (1953) (land-use regulation and nonconforming uses may be regulated to wither and die)
- State ex rel. Bray v. Russell, 89 Ohio St.3d 132 (2000) (due-process considerations in zoning challenges)
- Brown v. Cleveland, 66 Ohio St.2d 93 (1981) (recognizes transformative limits on nonconforming uses under zoning)
- State v. Hochhausler, 76 Ohio St.3d 455 (1996) (severability analysis for statutory/ordinance provisions)