Wray v. Gahm Properties, Ltd.
103 N.E.3d 148
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- ODOT filed an appropriation action against Gahm Properties for land taken for a public project; jury awarded Gahm $330,419.
- Gahm moved for recovery of costs and expenses (attorneys’ and appraisal fees) under R.C. 163.21(C)(2); ODOT opposed, disputing that the land was used for "agricultural purposes."
- Statutorily, an owner is entitled to costs only if the appropriated land is "used for agricultural purposes as defined in" R.C. 303.01/519.01; those definitions expressly include "timber."
- At trial Gahm introduced an appraisal stating the owner "has harvested the heavily wooded areas." ODOT’s appraiser testified he was unaware of timber sales but said it "doesn’t surprise" him; he later conclusorily testified the property was not used for agricultural purposes.
- The trial court awarded Gahm $32,224 in costs and expenses after a telephonic status conference (no evidentiary hearing transcript in the record).
- ODOT appealed solely arguing the award was improper because there was no evidence the property was used for agricultural purposes (i.e., timber harvesting as defined by the zoning statutes).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ODOT) | Defendant's Argument (Gahm) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appropriated land was "used for agricultural purposes" under R.C. 303.01/519.01 (so as to permit recovery of costs under R.C. 163.21(C)(2)) | Record lacks evidence of agricultural use; "timber" should require ongoing commercial production (citing CAUV statute) | Gahm presented evidence it harvested and sold timber (appraisal statement and testimony), which falls within "timber" in statutory definition of agriculture | Affirmed: competent, credible evidence supported finding the land was used for agricultural purposes (timber), so costs/expenses award was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and appellate deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 23 N.E.3d 1161 (Ohio 2014) (statutory construction presents a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Wilson v. Lawrence, 81 N.E.3d 1242 (Ohio 2017) (apply clear, unambiguous statutory language as written)
- Wootten v. Culp, 85 N.E.3d 198 (Ohio App. 2017) (trier of fact decides weight and credibility of evidence)