2024 Ohio 6077
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Twang, LLC owned a deteriorating historic building in Cincinnati, subject to multiple building code violations since 2016 and located in the city’s 9th Street Historic District.
- After years of noncompliance and failed attempts by Twang to obtain permission to demolish the building, the City of Cincinnati moved to repair the unsafe conditions using public funds and in partnership with the Landbank.
- The City provided initial notice in October 2022 (later re-sent and acknowledged by Twang in November 2022 as curing prior deficiencies), then began preparations for repairs.
- Twang sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent repairs and assessment of costs, claiming due process violations and insufficient notice.
- The trial court denied a preliminary injunction, excluded Twang's late-disclosed expert witnesses, and dismissed the complaint.
- On appeal, Twang challenged (1) the exclusion of its experts, (2) denial of the injunction, and (3) dismissal of its claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Expert Testimony | Twang argued the trial court improperly barred its experts at the hearing, denying them a fair opportunity to present their case. | City argued Twang disclosed experts only 2 days before the hearing, depriving them of fair notice and ability to prepare. | Exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion; late disclosure deprived City of fair opportunity to respond. |
| Preliminary Injunction (Likelihood of Success) | Twang claimed City failed to give sufficient notice or an opportunity for a hearing, violating due process and statutory requirements. | City argued they gave proper notice, any procedural deficiencies were cured, and Twang had opportunities to be heard. | Court found Twang unlikely to prevail; City complied with notice, Twang waived appeals, and informal process sufficed. |
| Preliminary Injunction (Irreparable Harm) | Twang claimed repairs and costs would cause irreparable harm, as real property is unique. | City argued Twang’s injury was only monetary and Twang actually wanted to demolish the property. | Court held harm was only monetary and not irreparable; Twang’s desired outcome (demolition) cut against the claim. |
| Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Claims | Twang argued dismissal was erroneous as there was a justiciable controversy over its due process rights and statutory compliance. | City contended there was no actual controversy—Twang failed to appeal orders and statutory process was followed. | Court affirmed dismissal; Twang failed to show an actual controversy or error in the trial court's finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. McDonagh, 177 Ohio App.3d 262 (interpretation of trial court’s discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (due process is flexible and context-dependent; predeprivation hearing not always required)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (procedural due process requirements for property deprivations)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (test for procedural protections required under due process)
- Albrecht v. Treon, 617 F.3d 890 (due process requires adequate procedural safeguards before property deprivation)