Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 19 declaratory -judgment action and/or a mandamus action to challenge the constitutionality of a zoning action. The Background/Facts: In August 2008, certain property in Middletown, Ohio known as the "Martin -Blake" property —was rezoned, through the enactment of two ordinances (the "ordinances"). The property was rezoned from low -density residential use to general industrial. Lori A. and Matthew E. Moore (the "Moores") owned property in Monroe, Ohio, which was adjacent to the Martin -Blake property in Middletown, Ohio. Following enactment of the ordinances, the Moores sued the City of Middle- town (the "City"). The Moores sought both a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus. In the declaratory judgment action, they asked the court to de- clare that the ordinances were arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional and in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, § 16. In their request for a writ of mandamus, they claimed that the City's action constituted a taking of their private property and unlawfully deprived them of "property rights consistent with their investment backed expectations," and entitled them to compensation for the taking. The City moved to dismiss the case. Among other things, it asserted that the Moores lacked standing (i.e., the legal right) to bring their claims. On the issue of standing, the trial court ruled that the Moores had standing to bring a declaratory -judgment action because they were persons affected by the City's ordinances —no matter that their property was in a different municipality. The trial court also ruled that the Moores lacked standing to bring the mandamus action because "even if there had been a taking, mandamus to appropriate the land was unavailable as a matter of law because Middletown could not appropriate land outside its jurisdictional limits." Ultimately, the trial court, dismissed the case, finding the Moores failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Moores appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. However, in so doing, it held that the Moores lacked standing to bring their claims, but did not distinguish between the declaratory judgment and mandamus claims. The court held that a nonresident contiguous property owner has no standing to bring an action against an adjacent political subdivi- sion seeking compensation for rezoning property located solely within the po- litical subdivision's boundaries. The Moores again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that the Moores lacked standing to bring their partial takings claim seeking mandamus relief, but had standing to bring their declaratory judgment action. The court concluded that the Moores lacked standing to bring the mandamus action because they could not establish that their mandamus claim would provide them with redress for any injury they suffered. This was because Ohio law holds that a municipality has no authority to appropriate property outside its jurisdictional limits (i.e., mandamus would not lie to compel the City to ap- propriate property in Monroe, where the Moores lived). ©2012 Thomson Reuters 3