2011 Ohio 4940
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Barberton demolished a structure at 1277 1/2 Prospect Street in August 2008.
- Thomas purchased the Prospect Street property in October 2008 from RBS Citizens Bank.
- In September 2010 Barberton certified demolition costs to the county auditor and Thomas was assessed $2,626 for the pre-purchase demolition.
- Thomas sued Barberton on September 9, 2010 to recover the assessment, arguing it was improper.
- Barberton moved for summary judgment arguing proper certification under RC 715.261(B)(1) or alternative RC 715.261(B)(2).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Barberton; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the demolition cost certification was improper for the 2008 demolition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of cost certification | Thomas argues certification did not occur within one year of costs incurred. | Barberton contends certification complied with RC 715.261(B)(1) and ordinance provisions. | Summary judgment improper; certification was not timely for the 2008 demolition. |
| Scope of Ordinance 139-2009 | Ordinance 139-2009 does not cover the August 2008 demolition. | Ordinance 139-2009 validly certified costs for demolitions within its dated range. | Ordinance 139-2009 does not encompass the 2008 demolition at Prospect Street. |
| Adequacy of evidence for summary judgment | There are genuine issues of material fact preventing summary judgment. | Barberton produced evidence supporting statutory certification and enforcement. | There were genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment was inappropriate. |
| Entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Thomas is entitled to recovery because the costs were unlawfully assessed. | Barberton contends proper certification or alternative remedy applies. | Thomas prevailed on the argument that the costs were improperly certified. |
| Overall disposition of the case | Trial court erred in granting summary judgment. | Court properly granted summary judgment based on certification grounds. | Court of Appeals reversed; judgment remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (1983) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light favorable to non-movant)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (nonmovant bears burden to show genuine issue of material fact)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo review of summary judgment; proper burden shifting)