The Keene Group, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio
998 F.3d 306
6th Cir.2021Background
- The City of Cincinnati condemned a dilapidated building at 5033 Newfield Ave and, after administrative public-nuisance proceedings, ordered its demolition; the building was razed on April 8, 2019.
- A tax-foreclosure sheriff’s sale (filed April 2017) resulted in The Keene Group purchasing the property on July 5, 2018; deed recorded August 2018.
- The City’s demolition decision was issued in July 2018 and the City sent certified “Notice of Nuisance Declaration” letters in November 2018 that were not delivered. The City also posted notices on the property.
- Keene admits it had actual knowledge of the ongoing condemnation/public-nuisance issues before purchase but says it did not learn of the demolition order prior to the razing.
- Keene sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process and Fourth Amendment) and for state-law trespass; the district court dismissed; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due Process (notice) | City failed to give constitutionally adequate notice before demolishing; Jones controls because certified letters were undelivered | Keene purchased a property already subject to condemnation, City complied with municipal posting and statutory procedures, and had made prior notice efforts | Affirmed: notice adequate under Mullane given Keene’s awareness of condemnation and City’s posting/statutory compliance; Jones distinguished |
| Fourth Amendment (warrant) | A warrant was required to seize/demolish Keene’s property | No warrant required for abating a condemned public nuisance when procedures afforded due process and owner had little/no privacy interest | Affirmed: dismisses claim—no warrant required; seizure was reasonable and Keene showed no expectation of privacy or other unreasonableness |
| Trespass (Ohio law) | Individual officers trespassed by entering and razing the property | Entry and demolition were authorized by the nuisance/condemnation proceedings, negating trespass | Affirmed: complaint fails to allege lack of authority; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (when mailed certified notice is returned unclaimed, additional reasonable steps may be required)
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983) (knowledge of delinquency is not equivalent to notice of a pending sale)
- Karkoukli’s, Inc. v. Dohany, 409 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 2005) (posting and other notice efforts can satisfy due process)
- Ming Kuo Yang v. City of Wyoming, 793 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2015) (reasonableness of notice evaluated in light of government’s efforts)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (balance privacy intrusion against government need when assessing warrant requirement)
- Freeman v. City of Dallas, 242 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2001) (no warrant necessary to abate property declared a nuisance where procedures satisfied due process)