QUEENSGATE TERMINALS, LLC, Plаintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
APPEAL NOS. C-110653, C-110671; TRIAL NOS. A-0708182, A-0907363, A-0909060
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
September 27, 2013
2013-Ohio-4219
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleаs; Judgment Appealed From Is: Dismissed
Terrance A. Nestоr, Chief Counsel, City of Cincinnati Solicitor‘s Office, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Please note: these consolidatеd cases have been removed from the accelerated calendar.
O P I N I O N.
{¶1} Appellant/cross-appellee Queensgate Terminals, LLC (“Queensgate“), and appellee/cross-appellant the city of Cincinnati each appeal from thе trial court‘s entries of judgment in these cases to determine the measure of damages due Queensgate for the city‘s denial of aсcess to an abutting public road. Because the judgments have been satisfied, we dismiss the appeals as moot.
{¶2} The Ohio Supreme Cоurt affirmed this court‘s granting of a writ of mandamus to compel the city to institute an appropriation proceeding to determine thе compensation due to Queensgate for the city‘s September 12, 2005 taking. See State ex rel. Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 118 Ohio St.3d 131, 2008-Ohio-1966, 886 N.E.2d 839, ¶ 41. The city had denied Queensgate and its lessor, Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc., a curb cut, denying them access to their riverfront property from an abutting public road. The city initiated the appropriation action, and it was consolidated with other litigation in the trial court under the case numbered A-0708182.
{¶3} On March 2, 2010, the trial court оrdered the city to deposit $1,680,783 with the court to secure the recovery of Queensgate‘s anticipated damages. From March 15 tо March 21, 2011, the trial court conducted a jury trial on the matter. On March 22, 2011, the jury returned a verdict of $500,000 for Queensgate. The same day, the trial court issued an order of distribution of the deposited funds. Queensgate received the full amount of its judgment plus interest. And the city received the remainder of the deposited funds.
{¶4} The gravamen of each appeal is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on how to computе the damages due to Queensgate for the city‘s taking. Queensgate argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the city‘s $5 million sеttlement with Hilltop, and in admitting evidence of events that took place
{¶5} But the satisfaction of a judgment renders an appeal from a judgment moot. See Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243, 245, 551 N.E.2d 1249 (1990); see also Wiest v. Wiegele, 170 Ohio App.3d 700, 2006-Ohio-5348, 868 N.E.2d 1040, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.); Art‘s Rental Equip., Inc. v. Bear Creek Constr., LLC, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110544, C-110555, C-110558, C-110559, C-110564, C-110785, C-110792, C-110797, C-110798, C-110799, C-110800, C-110801, C-110808, and C-120309, 2012-Ohio-5371, ¶ 7. Absent a fraud upon the court, where a judgment has been voluntarily paid and satisfied, that payment puts an end to the controversy. It takes away “the right to appeal or prosecute error or even to move fоr vacation of judgment.” Blodgett at 245, quoting Rauch v. Noble, 169 Ohio St. 314, 316, 159 N.E.2d 451 (1959).
{¶6} A party acts voluntarily in satisfying a judgment when it fails to obtain a stay of the trial court‘s judgment pending appeal. See Wiest at ¶ 12. If a party seeking an appeal fails to obtain a stay of the judgment, and the judgment is satisfied, the appeal must be dismissed because the issues in the case have become moot. See id., citing Hagood v. Gail, 105 Ohio App.3d 780, 664 N.E.2d 1373 (11th Dist.1995). In Rauch, a highway-appropriation action under former
{¶7} Here, on the same day that the jury returned a verdict awarding Queensgate $500,000 in damagеs, Queensgate and the city appeared before the trial court. Queensgate sought distribution of its award from the deposited funds. Queеnsgate offered a suggested amount of interest due, and the city did not oppose Queensgate‘s calculations. Although the city initially suggested that the court hold the funds or require a bond to be posted, it did not pursue the matter. The city‘s principal response to Queensgаte‘s request was that if the court released the funds, the city “would like the balance of funds [already deposited] released to the City оf Cincinnati.” The court agreed and journalized its order of distribution providing an immediate distribution of $667,038 to Queensgate with the balance to the сity.
{¶8} The certified copy of the trial court‘s docket and journal entries reflects that on the same day, March 22, 2011, the clerk of cоurt issued checks to Queensgate in the amount of $667,038 and to the city in the amount of $936,837.17.
{¶9} Although the trial court did not enter judgment on the jury‘s verdict until July 6, 2011, at no timе after the March 22 order of distribution did Queensgate or the city seek a stay or post a supersedeas bond in either the trial court or in this court.
{¶10} In its reply brief, the city argued that the appeals had become moot with the distribution of the funds. At oral argument, Queensgate‘s counsel argued that the appeals were not moot because, under
{¶12} From that point on,
{¶13} Here, the jury awarded Queensgate $500,000 in compensation for the taking that occurred on September 12, 2005. Thе deposited proceeds have been distributed. Neither party has sought a stay of the trial court‘s order of distribution or of its judgment. Neither рarty has posted an appeal bond. The jury‘s award has been satisfied, and the funds deposited by the city to secure Queensgate‘s аnticipated recovery are no longer under the jurisdiction and control of the court. Therefore, the appeals must be dismissed as moot. See Art‘s Rental Equip., 2012-Ohio-5371, at ¶ 13; see also Rauch, 169 Ohio St. at 316, 159 N.E.2d 451.
Judgment dismissed.
HILDEBRANDT, P.J., HENDON and CUNNINGHAM, JJ.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.