2019 Ohio 4669
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- ODOT (through Director Jerry Wray) sought to appropriate Hiironen’s industrial property at 2742 Grand Avenue for the Opportunity Corridor project; date of take June 30, 2016.
- Hiironen bought the 1895 three-story building in 2010 and undertook renovations aiming toward a cryogenics lab but the building was not used as a lab by the take date.
- ODOT filed motions in limine to exclude evidence about other settlements, proposed future use (cryogenic facility), certain experts’ testimony, and two appraisals; the court granted those motions before retrial.
- First trial ended in mistrial after Hiironen introduced an undisclosed drawing and inadmissible testimony; court then tightened evidentiary limits for the second trial.
- At retrial, the jury fixed just compensation at $500,000; Hiironen appealed, arguing procedural due process violations from the evidentiary exclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of evidence re: property’s actual/future use (cryogenic facility) | Exclude as speculative, irrelevant, prejudicial; prior rulings supported consistency | Excluding cryogenic-use evidence denied ability to show actual use and was waived by ODOT’s failure to object at first trial | Court upheld limitation: owner could testify about existing improvements but not speculative future use; no due-process violation; no abuse of discretion |
| Exclusion of lay/expert support witnesses (Eberhard, Fischback, Garber) and limits on owner-opinion reliance | Witnesses not qualified to value property; their work was not used by any appraiser so testimony is irrelevant | Witnesses would show market comparables, replacement costs, and formed the basis for Hiironen’s and his appraiser’s opinions | Court excluded those witnesses because they didn’t value the property and their work wasn’t integrated into appraisals; Hiironen still allowed to give owner-opinion but not base it on inadmissible expert reports; no abuse of discretion |
| Preclusion of Firca and Pool appraisals and use of their reports to cross-examine state’s appraiser | Appraisals were flawed/irrelevant (Firca denied access; Pool appraised after damage) so exclude; letting them in would repeat earlier evidentiary problems | Needed their reports to confront/state’s expert and to show alternate valuations | Court excluded their reports as unreliable and speculative given Hiironen’s conduct; exclusion did not deny effective cross-examination or due process; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Sowers v. Schaeffer, 155 Ohio St. 454 (1951) (uses to which property might be applied can be considered but not speculative future business)
- Tokles & Son v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621 (1992) (owner-opinion rule permits owners to testify on value without expert qualification)
- In re Ohio Turnpike Comm., 164 Ohio St. 377 (1955) (trial court has broad discretion admitting or rejecting evidence of appropriated property value)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)
- Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (1990) (failure to object generally constitutes waiver)
- Lyles, 42 Ohio St.3d 98 (1989) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)