2019 Ohio 1866
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Property: 435 Elm Street (Convention Place Mall) owned by City of Cincinnati; long-term ground leases granted to CBD Investments LP (office portion) and RSJJ Investments (retail portion). Ronald Goldschmidt is principal of both lessees.
- US Bank filed foreclosure against CBD LP’s leasehold; City of Cincinnati asserted cross-claims against CBD LP and a separate claim against RSJJ for lease defaults, seeking termination, delinquent rent, and a writ of forcible entry and detainer.
- City moved for partial summary judgment as to declaratory relief and writ of forcible entry and detainer; trial court granted the motion and issued writs; city later obtained an order of possession.
- Appellants (CBD LP and RSJJ) appealed and argued equitable defenses (laches, estoppel, waiver) and that the city was acting in a proprietary—not governmental—capacity when enforcing the leases.
- Trial court stayed execution conditioned on a supersedeas bond; appellants did not post the bond and appealed the stay order as well; this court consolidated the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the city’s enforcement of the leases was a governmental or proprietary function | City: enforcement furthers an urban renewal project and is a governmental function | Appellants: enforcement is like a private landlord’s proprietary act | Held: enforcement of leases tied to an urban renewal project is a governmental function under R.C. 2744.01(C)(2) |
| Whether equitable defenses (estoppel, laches, waiver) bar the city’s relief | City: immune from equitable defenses when performing governmental functions | Appellants: long nonenforcement should estop the city | Held: estoppel and similar equitable defenses do not apply against a political subdivision acting in a governmental capacity; defenses fail |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded partial summary judgment | Appellants: affidavits (Goldschmidt) created factual disputes | City: immunity from equitable defenses disposes of those disputes as a matter of law | Held: no genuine issue of material fact; partial summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the trial court could issue writs/execute judgment after appeal was filed | City: trial court retains authority to enforce its judgment absent a supersedeas bond/stay | Appellants: filing notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction | Held: filing appeal does not prevent enforcement; trial court may execute judgment until appellant obtains a stay by posting a bond |
Key Cases Cited
- Hortman v. Miamisburg, 852 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio 2006) (equitable estoppel inapplicable against political subdivision performing governmental function)
- Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Frantz, 555 N.E.2d 630 (Ohio 1990) (estoppel generally does not apply against state or its agencies performing governmental functions)
- Besl Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 341 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio 1975) (same principle regarding estoppel and governmental functions)
- State ex rel. Klein v. Chorpening, 450 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio 1983) (trial court retains authority to execute judgment absent supersedeas bond)
- Doe v. Shaffer, 738 N.E.2d 1243 (Ohio 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)