The Colt‘s Neck Homeowners Association, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Franklin County Ohio Board of Commissioners et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 24AP-273
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
April 8, 2025
2025-Ohio-1236
BOGGS, J.
(C.P.C. No. 23CV-9463) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
On brief: Brosius, Johnson & Griggs, LLC, Jennifer L. Huber, Julia E. Donnan, and Peter N. Griggs, for appellee Jefferson Township, Ohio.
On brief: Eastman & Smith Ltd. and Joseph R. Durham, for appellees Franklin County, Ohio Board of Commissioners and Franklin County Engineer. Argued: Joseph R. Durham.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
DECISION
BOGGS, J.
{1} Plaintiff-appellant, the Colt‘s Neck Homeowners Association (“Colt‘s Neck“), appeals the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed its administrative appeal from the order of a joint board comprised of county commissioners from Franklin County, Ohio, and Licking County, Ohio (the “joint board“), to proceed with a petition for ditch improvements filed in accordance with
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{2} On May 24, 2023, the Jefferson Township Board of Trustees and Julie Dockter filed a Petition for Ditch Improvement with the Franklin County Board of Commissioners pursuant to
{3} Because the proposed ditch improvement involved property located in both Franklin County and Licking County, the matter proceeded before a joint board of county commissioners, consisting of the members of each county‘s board of county commissioners. See
{4} Colt‘s Neck filed notices of appeal of the joint board‘s order in both the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.
{5} In the Franklin County appeal at issue here, appellees filed motions to dismiss. The Franklin County Board of Commissioners, the Franklin County Engineer, and the Licking County Board of Commissioners (collectively, the “county appellees“) filed a joint motion, while Jefferson Township filed its own motion. The county appellees argued that the joint board‘s order to proceed with the petition at the conclusion of the first hearing was not an appealable order, as there is no statutory authority to appeal an order to proceed following a first hearing, and that Colt‘s Neck lacks standing to appeal because no assessments have been made and it has therefore not been affected by the order to proceed. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss on March 28, 2024, holding, consistently with appellees’ arguments, that there is no right to an immediate appeal from an order to proceed with a petition following a first hearing and that Colt‘s Neck cannot establish that it has been or will be harmed by the outcome of the petition proceeding.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{6} Colt‘s Neck filed a timely appeal and asserts a single assignment of error:
The trial court erred in dismissing Appellant‘s case pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because Ohio law provides for the appeal of “any order” made by a board of county commissioners related to county drainage improvements sought under Chapters 6131 and 6133 of the Ohio Revised Code and Appellant had standing to bring the appeal.
(Appellant‘s Brief at 1.)
III. ANALYSIS
A. Statutory process and authority to appeal
{7} Pursuant to
{8} Proceedings on a petition for a joint county drainage improvement “shall be conducted by a joint board of county commissioners consisting of the members of the boards of county commissioners of the several counties in which land may be benefited or damaged by the proposed improvement.”
{9} At a first hearing on a petition for a proposed improvement, the board (or joint board) of county commissioners must hear the preliminary report of the county engineer, required by
{10} If the board finds at the conclusion of the first hearing that the proposed improvement is not necessary, will not be conducive to the public welfare, or that the estimated cost of the proposed improvement will exceed the benefits to be derived if it is constructed, the board must dismiss the petition and enter its findings upon its journal.
{11}
{12} Pursuant to
B. The Fifth District‘s decision
{13} As stated above, Colt‘s Neck filed notices of appeal from the joint board‘s order to proceed in both the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Like the trial court here, the Licking County court dismissed Colt‘s Neck‘s appeal, see The Colt‘s Neck Homeowners Assn. v. Franklin Cty. Commrs., Licking C.P. No. 2023CV01462 (Apr. 25, 2024), and Colt‘s Neck appealed that decision to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, raising the same arguments and asserting the same assignment of error it asserts here. Before turning to our own analysis, we briefly address the Fifth District‘s resolution of Colt‘s Neck‘s appeal.
{14} On January 16, 2025, the Fifth District dismissed Colt‘s Neck‘s appeal. Colt‘s Neck Homeowners Assn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2025-Ohio-113 (5th Dist.). The Fifth District held that the Licking County Court of Common Pleas was not required to convene a panel of judges pursuant to
{15} We respectfully disagree with the Fifth District‘s holdings.
C. R.C. 6133.10(A) required the trial court to convene a panel of judges
{16} We begin with Colt‘s Neck‘s argument that the trial court erred by dismissing its appeal prior to convening a panel of judges pursuant to
{17} On appeal here, appellees make a new argument in response to Colt‘s Neck‘s argument that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss its appeal before convening a panel of judges pursuant to
{18} Both
{19} An appeal from a board‘s order allowing or denying compensation or damages in a joint-county improvement petition proceeding is not decided by a panel of judges under
{20}
D. R.C. 6131.25 authorizes an appeal from an order to proceed following a first hearing
{21} We likewise disagree with the trial court (and with the Fifth District) that
{22}
{23} To agree with appellees that there is no right to appeal an order to proceed following a first hearing would be to render language in
E. Colt‘s Neck does not lack standing to appeal
{24} Finally, we disagree with the trial court‘s conclusion that Colt‘s Neck was not entitled to appeal because it cannot show that it has been harmed or will be harmed by the final outcome of the petition process.
{25} A court of common pleas may only hear administrative appeals when specific statutory authority grants the court jurisdiction. Benevolent Emps. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 2012-Ohio-5905, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.), citing Total Office Prods. v. Dept. of Adm. Servs., 2006-Ohio-3313, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.), citing Abt v. Ohio Expositions Comm., 110 Ohio App.3d 696, 699 (10th Dist. 1996). As stated above,
{26} The county appellees argue that Colt‘s Neck was not an “affected owner” following the joint board‘s decision to proceed with the petition because the joint board has not yet made any assessment against Colt‘s Neck‘s property and because Colt‘s Neck has, therefore, not yet suffered an actual injury. We disagree.
{27} The authorization to appeal under
{28} As stated above,
{29}
IV. CONCLUSION
{30} For these reasons, we sustain Colt‘s Neck‘s sole assignment of error, reverse the trial court‘s judgment, and remand this matter for further proceedings conducted pursuant to
DORRIAN and BEATTY BLUNT, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed; case remanded.