Wintersville v. Bates

2026-Ohio-417 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District, Jefferson County · February 10, 2026 · No. 25 JE 0009

Summary

The Seventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a Jefferson County Common Pleas Court judgment limiting Larry Bates’s responsibility for abating a deteriorating retaining-wall nuisance to the portion located on his property. The court held that the trial court properly reviewed the administrative decision under Ohio Revised Code § 2506.04 and did not abuse its discretion in finding that requiring Bates to abate portions of the wall on other property was arbitrary and capricious.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District, Jefferson County
Writing for the Court
Mark A. Hanni; Carol Ann Robb; Katelyn Dickey
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District, Jefferson County
Decision date
February 10, 2026
Docket number
25 JE 0009
Procedural posture
The Village appealed a Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas judgment that partially reversed a Wintersville Village Board of Nuisance Appeals decision requiring Bates to abate the entire deteriorating retaining-wall nuisance.
Standard of review
On an R.C. Chapter 2506 administrative appeal, the common pleas court may extensively weigh the evidence and conduct a virtual de novo examination of the record. The court of appeals reviews the common pleas court's decision for abuse of discretion on evidentiary matters and does not substitute its judgment merely because it might have reached a different result; abuse of discretion requires an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable attitude.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Village of Wintersville, Ohio v. Larry Bates
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionstandard of reviewagency adjudicationordinancesmunicipal law

Practice areas

administrative lawmunicipal lawreal estate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the common pleas court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Village Board of Nuisance Appeals or otherwise applied the wrong standard of review under R.C. 2506.04.
  2. Whether the common pleas court abused its discretion by finding that Bates could not be required to abate the portion of a nuisance-retaining wall located outside his property.

Holdings

  1. The common pleas court applied the proper R.C. 2506.04 standard and did not improperly substitute its judgment for the Board's judgment. The court was authorized to weigh the evidence extensively and conduct a virtual de novo examination of the administrative record.
  2. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by limiting Bates's responsibility to abating the portion of the retaining wall located on his property.
  3. R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) and Pelletier v. Campbell were inapplicable because this was not a political-subdivision-immunity or public-road-maintenance case; it was a case concerning responsibility for abating a public nuisance.

Key quotations

The scope of the appellate court's standard of review is more limited, as the ability to review questions of law does not include the same extensive power to determine the preponderance of the evidence. (¶ 12)
After reviewing this evidence and the surveys, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Bates is only responsible for abating the portion of the nuisance wall that actually sits on his property. (¶ 37)

Factual background

Bates owned property at 333 Fernwood Road in Wintersville, adjacent to a deteriorating retaining wall made of railroad ties. The wall predated Bates's ownership, its construction and original builder were unknown, and most of the wall was located outside Bates's property on land belonging to another owner or an unidentified party and partly within a Village right-of-way. After the Village notified Bates to abate the entire nuisance, the Board found him responsible for the whole wall, but the trial court limited his responsibility to the portion actually located on his property.

Procedural history

The Village served Bates with a notice to abate a public nuisance involving a deteriorating retaining wall. The Village Board of Nuisance Appeals found that the wall was a nuisance and that Bates was responsible for abating the entire wall. On administrative appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506, the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas determined that Bates was responsible only for the portion of the wall located on his property. The Village appealed, and the Seventh District affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…