Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a compensation trial in an eminent-domain proceeding cannot commence while a property owner’s immediate appeal of the appropriation decision under Ohio Revised Code 163.09(B)(3) is pending. The court granted a writ of prohibition preventing the Washington County Court of Common Pleas judge from proceeding with the compensation trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a trial court may conduct the compensation phase of an eminent-domain proceeding while a property owner's immediate appeal from the necessity determination under R.C. 163.09(B)(3) is pending.
- Whether the property owners were entitled to a writ of prohibition because the trial court's continued exercise of jurisdiction was patently and unambiguously unauthorized.
- Whether Ohio Power should be permitted to intervene as of right.
- Whether Ohio Power's motion for judgment on the pleadings and the judge's motion to dismiss should be granted.
Holdings
- An eminent-domain compensation trial cannot commence while a property owner's immediate appeal from the appropriation or necessity decision under R.C. 163.09(B)(3) is pending.
- Relators were entitled to a peremptory writ of prohibition because the trial court's jurisdiction to conduct the compensation trial was patently and unambiguously lacking.
Key quotations
“We therefore hold that the compensation trial in an eminent-domain proceeding cannot commence during the pendency of a property owner’s R.C. 163.09(B)(3) appeal of the appropriation decision.” (¶ 17)
“we have consistently held that once an appeal is perfected, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction over matters that are inconsistent with the reviewing court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment.” (¶ 25)
Factual background
Ohio Power sought easements from the relators for installation and construction of a high-voltage transmission line. The trial court determined that the appropriations were necessary and for a public use, relying in part on an irrebuttable presumption arising from Ohio Power Siting Board approval. The property owners appealed that determination under R.C. 163.09(B)(3), but the trial court scheduled a compensation trial during the appeal.
Procedural history
Ohio Power filed appropriation and condemnation complaints in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas. After the trial court ruled that the takings were necessary and for a public use, the property owners appealed under Ohio Revised Code 163.09(B)(3). The trial court nevertheless scheduled a compensation trial, prompting the property owners to seek prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Remand instructions
Judge Halliday is prohibited from proceeding with the compensation trial during the pendency of relators' R.C. 163.09(B)(3) appeal in the Fourth District. The motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings were denied; the motion for stay was denied as moot.