Wray v. Albi Holdings, P.L.L., 181 N.E.3d 575

Albi Holdings/BiS owned and operated a commercial records-storage facility in Hamilton County; ODOT indicated in 2014 it planned a “total take,” later a partial take, and filed an appropriation petition in June 2018.
BiS adopted a written employee "Retention/Severance Policy" (originating from earlier verbal promises) to keep skilled employees during the threatened appropriation and owner’s planned retirement.
After ODOT abandoned the appropriation in November 2019, BiS paid $212,990 in retention bonuses to employees and sought reimbursement from ODOT under R.C. 163.21(A)(2)(c) and R.C. 163.62(A).
The trial court held the bonuses were not recoverable as “other actual expenses” under R.C. 163.21 because the statute covers expenses necessary to present the case; it denied recovery.
The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that (1) statutory canons (noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis) read “other actual expenses” to mean litigation/trial-preparation expenses similar to attorney and witness fees, and (2) R.C. 163.62 — even if read to apply beyond displaced persons — likewise does not cover business retention bonuses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employee-retention bonuses are recoverable as “other actual expenses” under R.C. 163.21(A)(2)(c)	BiS: bonuses are actual expenses incurred because of the abandoned appropriation and thus recoverable.	ODOT: statute targets litigation-related expenses (witness, attorney fees); bonuses are business decisions and not necessary to present the case.	Court: Not recoverable — “other actual expenses” limited to expenses similar to attorney/witness fees (litigation/trial-prep related).
Whether R.C. 163.62 entitles BiS to reimbursement of retention bonuses	BiS: R.C. 163.62 authorizes reimbursement of reasonable costs and is not limited to displaced persons; bonuses were incurred because of the condemnation proceeding.	ODOT: R.C. 163.62 applies to displaced persons and covers litigation/valuation-related fees; bonuses are business expenses.	Court: Even assuming R.C. 163.62 could apply to nondisplaced owners, the bonuses are not the type of condemnation-related expenses the statute and administrative rules contemplate; not recoverable.

Dept. of Natural Resources v. Sellers, 14 Ohio App.2d 132 (5th Dist. 1968) (R.C. 163.21 is remedial and intended to allow recovery of trial-preparation expenses)
Columbus v. Triplett, 127 Ohio App.3d 434 (10th Dist. 1998) ("other actual expenses" limited to expenses reasonably necessary for presentation of the case)
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (application of ejusdem generis in statutory interpretation)
In re Appropriation of Easement for Hwy. Purposes (Preston v. Weiler), 175 Ohio St. 107 (1963) (condemnation cases involve valuation-focused proceedings)
Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397 (2011) (noscitur a sociis explained as a statutory-construction tool)
Toledo v. Bernard Ross Family Ltd. P’ship, 165 Ohio App.3d 557 (6th Dist. 2006) (R.C. 163.62 and 163.21 apply to displaced persons; those not displaced cannot recover under 163.62)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)