[Cite as Putnam Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Weis, 2019-Ohio-3720.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
PUTNAM COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PUTNAM COUNTY, OH,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 12-19-01
v.
WILLIAM R. WEIS, ET AL., OPINION
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PUTNAM COUNTY, OH,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 12-19-02
v.
MARK G. MAAG, ET AL., OPINION
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Appeals from Putnam County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. 2018-CV-23 and 2018-CV-26
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: September 16, 2019
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
APPEARANCES:
Linde Hurst Webb for Appellants
Frank J. Reed, Jr. and Stephen E. Chappelear for Appellee
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Landowners-appellants, Mark Maag, Patricia Maag, William Weis, and
Mary K. Weis (collectively, the “landowners”), bring these appeals from the
January 28, 2019, and February 6, 2019, judgments of the Putnam County Common
Pleas Court awarding landowners compensation for land that had been appropriated
by the Board of Putnam County Commissioners (the “commissioners”) to widen
County Road 5 (“Road 5”). On appeal, landowners contend that the trial court erred
by refusing to dismiss the commissioners’ applications for appropriation for failure
to meet the requisite statutory requirements, that the trial court erred by determining
the “date of the take,” that the trial court erred by consolidating all of the jury trials,
that the trial court erred when it “conditioned a new trial date on the landowners
waiving their constitutional right to separate trials,” and that the trial court erred by
excluding the testimony of a rebuttal witness at trial.
-2-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
Background
{¶2} In 2012, commissioners filed appropriation petitions seeking to widen
Road 5 in part to accommodate truck traffic to an industrial park. While litigation
was ongoing in both the trial court and this Court, the widening of the road was
completed in October of 2012.1
{¶3} In 2014, this Court determined that the commissioners did not follow
the proper procedures for the road-widening project. See State ex rel. Patrick Bros.,
A Gen. Partnership v. Putnam Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-05,
2014-Ohio-2717, appeal not accepted 141 Ohio St.3d 1422, 2014-Ohio-5567.
Subsequently, after further proceedings occurred at the trial court level, this Court
directed the commissioners to dismiss the appropriation cases that had been
previously filed and to refile them once the proper procedures had been followed.
See Putnam Cty. Bd. Of Commrs. V. Patrick Bros., et al., 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-
15-06, (Dec. 21, 2015).2
{¶4} In 2018, commissioners filed thirteen appropriation cases against the
Road 5 landowners. The refiled cases were done after a unanimous vote of the
commissioners pursuant to a freeholders petition submitted under R.C. 5555.06.3
1
An affidavit included in the record states that widening Road 5 began on May 31, 2012, and was completed
in October of 2012.
2
We placed this case on our accelerated calendar and it was ultimately dismissed. Although our accelerated
calendar prevents cases from being cited as legal authority, we cite it here only to help provide background
for this matter.
3
To an extent, landowners contest this issue. At least they argue that the unanimous resolution was not
attached to the refiled complaints.
-3-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
The commissioners also determined that the appropriation was necessary, which
was stated in the applications for appropriation. Attached to the individual petitions
for appropriation were the 2011 appraisals with offers to pay the assigned value of
the property.
{¶5} Only two of the thirteen appropriation cases proceeded to a jury verdict
and those two cases are the subjects of this appeal. One of the properties, the Weis
property, had .0298 net acres appropriated for a perpetual, permanent easement.4
The second property, owned by the Maags, had .6681 acres of property
appropriated.5
{¶6} The trial court set the matters for trial on October 9-12, 2018, using an
abbreviated scheduling due to R.C. 163.22, which requires appropriation
proceedings to “be advanced as a matter of immediate public interest and concern
and shall be heard by the court at the earliest practicable moment.” All of the cases
were consolidated for purposes of trial under Civ.R. 42(A), with the trial court
finding that they presented common questions of law and fact. Landowners
challenged the consolidation, requesting separate individual trials, but this was
denied by the trial court.
4
In total, the Weis family owned just over half an acre in gross acres, .56. In net acreage, the size of their
property went from .5003 acres to .4705 net acres after the appropriation.
5
The Maag property, also sought (retroactively) temporary easements for roadway crew to be on part of the
land for construction purposes, even though it had already been completed.
-4-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
{¶7} On August 3, 2018, a pretrial hearing was held wherein landowners
filed a motion to continue the October trial date. Landowners contended that they
needed additional time to get their own appraisals of the appropriated property
completed. The trial court inquired as to why the landowners were only just now,
so many years after the actual physical appropriation, and over six months into the
current action, attempting to get their own appraisals. Unsatisfied with landowners’
response, the trial court denied the motion to continue the trial date. Landowners
then again attempted to sever the trials. The commissioners argued that this was
just another attempt at delaying the matter. Although the trial court again refused
to sever the trials, in order to prevent confusion on valuing the properties an entry
was issued that one jury would hear the evidence on each property, make a finding
as to compensation for that property, and then proceed to value the appropriation of
the next property.
{¶8} A jury trial was held on October 9-11, 2018.6 The jury heard testimony
from the landowners as to what they felt they were owed in compensation, and then
the jury heard from the commissioners’ appraiser. Ultimately the jury awarded the
Weis family $10,000, consistent with the commissioners’ appraisal, and the jury
6
Three cases actually proceeded to trial, but only two were tried before the jury. It appears the third matter
settled and it is not a subject of this appeal.
-5-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
awarded the Maag family $6,755 consistent with the commissioners’ appraisal.7
Judgment entries finalizing the verdicts were filed January 28, 2019, and February
6, 2019, respectively. It is from these judgments that landowners appeal, asserting
the following assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. 1
The trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the commissioners’
applications for appropriation for failure to meet the
requirements of R.C. 163.04 and R.C. 163.041.
Assignment of Error No. 2
The trial court erred by determining the “date of take” was May
31, 2012.
Assignment of Error No. 3
The trial court erred by ordering all of the landowners’ jury trials
be consolidated.
Assignment of Error No. 4
The trial court erred when it conditioned a new trial date on the
landowners waiving their constitutional right to separate trials
and challenging the consolidation of jury trials.
Assignment of Error No. 5
The trial court erred when it excluded the landowners’ witness
Robert Hunt in rebuttal.
{¶9} For ease of discussion we elect to address some of the assignments of
error out of the order in which they were raised.
7
William Weis testified that he was seeking $37,800 in compensation. He testified that although the property
to be acquired was .0298 acres out of roughly half an acre, he argued that he was losing 10 feet of the 24 feet
of the frontage of his property. He felt that this loss of approximately 42% of his frontage entitled him to
42% of the value of the entire property. Mark Maag testified that he was seeking $72,154 for the .6681 acres
that was taken from him. He felt that he was losing 10 percent of the front of his property and 10 percent
from the side, so he should be entitled to 20% of his property value, $60,000, plus $9,754 for land, and $2,400
for landscaping.
-6-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
Second Assignment of Error
{¶10} In landowners’ second assignment of error, they argue that the trial
court erred by determining that the “date of the take” was May 31, 2012,
approximately when construction to widen Road 5 began. Specifically, landowners
contend that while the Road 5 construction began on May 31, 2012, having their
land valued as of the date of an “illegal take”8 is unjust, and the date of the take
should have been set later, particularly when “valid” applications for appropriation
had been filed by the commissioners.
Standard of Review
{¶11} The determination of the “date of the take” in an appropriation action
is an issue of law that we review de novo. Ohio Dept. of Nat Resources v. Thomas,
3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-16-05, 2016-Ohio-8406, ¶ 68.
Analysis
{¶12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has specifically set guidelines for
determining the “date of take” for valuation purposes in appropriation actions. “It
is recognized in this state that property taken for public use shall be valued as of the
date of trial, that being the date of take, unless the appropriator has taken possession
8
It is unclear what the landowners are basing the phrase “illegal take” upon. Even when we found that the
commissioners had not followed the proper procedures in State ex rel. Patrick Bros., A Gen. Partnership v.
Putnam Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-05, 2014-Ohio-2717, appeal not accepted 141 Ohio
St.3d 1422, 2014-Ohio-5567, we still found that the commissioners had the authority to take the land so long
as the right procedures were followed.
-7-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
prior thereto, in which event compensation is determined as of the time of the
taking.” (Emphasis added.) Director of Highways v. Olrich, 5 Ohio St.2d 70, 72,
(1966) citing In re Appropriation for Highway Purposes, 167 Ohio St. 463 (1958);
Nichols v. City of Cleveland, 104 Ohio St. 19 (1922); Board of Education of
Cleveland City School Dist. V. Hecht, 102 Ohio App. 521 (8th Dist.1955); In re
Appropriation of Easement for Highway Purposes, 90 Ohio App. 471 (2d
Dist.1951).9
{¶13} Based on the explicit language of the Supreme Court of Ohio in
Olrich, where an appropriating authority has taken possession of land prior to trial,
the appropriated land should be valued at the time of the taking. Here it is essentially
undisputed that the Road 5 project commenced May 31, 2012, and was finished in
October of 2012. The trial court determined that 2012 was the proper time for the
take because it was when the commissioners “came upon [landowners’] property to
complete the widening of County Road 5.” (Doc. No. 191). The trial court’s
determination is in clear compliance with the Olrich holding.
{¶14} Nevertheless, landowners contend that the commissioners essentially
unlawfully occupied the land for Road 5 from May 31, 2012, until the time of trial,
and that the landowners were not being compensated for it. This of course ignores
9
We recognized the Olrich holding as controlling authority for appropriation actions in Ohio Dept. of Nat
Resources v. Thomas, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-16-05, 2016-Ohio-8406, but found that a flowage easement,
which had to be determined over a period of time to be a taking, was a slightly different matter than what is
presented here in a more traditional case.
-8-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
the fact that the landowners are being compensated as though the land was
purchased when the government entered onto it. The few cases cited by landowners
such as Becos v. Masheter, 15 Ohio St.2d 15 (1968), do nothing to contradict the
Olrich holding’s applicability to this matter, and therefore we see no reason to
depart from Olrich.10 Therefore, landowners argument is not well-taken, and their
second assignment of error is overruled.
First Assignment of Error
{¶15} In landowners first assignment of error, they argue that the trial court
erred by refusing to dismiss the commissioners’ applications for appropriation in
this matter. Specifically, they argue that commissioners failed to comply with R.C.
163.04, 163.041, and R.C. 163.59(E), by “neglecting to serve” a good-faith offer,
and by failing to obtain new appraisals and title work when the appropriation action
was filed this time. In addition, the landowners argue that the commissioners failed
to pass a unanimous resolution and attach it to the petitions.
Standard of Review
{¶16} At least one Ohio Appellate Court has found that the issue of proper
service or notice pursuant to R.C. 163.04(A) is jurisdictional in nature, and thus a
legal matter, which we would review de novo. Dublin v. Beatley, 5th Dist. Delaware
10
The Becos case dealt with a situation where property had depreciated in value due to a county acquiring
other properties in the vicinity and demolishing buildings. It was determined that in such a situation, where
the government’s action caused the diminution in value before they entered onto a property, the date of the
take could be set earlier. It has no relevance to the case before us.
-9-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
No. 16CAE040021, 2016-Ohio-5606, ¶ 16.11 Any related issues that deal with
factual questions, however, are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). An abuse of discretion is
a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id.
Analysis
{¶17} Initially we observe that the “notice” requirements for an
appropriation action are contained in Revised Code 163.04, which reads as follows.
(A) At least thirty days before filing a petition pursuant to
section 163.05 of the Revised Code, an agency shall provide notice
to the owner of the agency’s intent to acquire the property. The
notice shall be substantially in the form set forth in section
163.041 of the Revised Code.12
(B) Together with the notice that division (A) of this section
requires, or after providing that notice but not less than thirty
days before filing a petition pursuant to section 163.05 of the
Revised Code, an agency shall provide an owner with a written
good faith offer to purchase the property. * * *
(C) An agency may appropriate real property only after the
agency obtains an appraisal of the property and provides a copy
of the appraisal to the owner or, if more than one, each owner or
to the guardian or trustee of each owner. * * * When the appraisal
indicates that the property is worth less than ten thousand dollars,
the agency need only provide an owner, guardian, or trustee with
a summary of the appraisal. The agency shall provide the copy or
summary of the appraisal to an owner, guardian, or trustee at or
11
Although we would typically address jurisdictional-related issues first, there is no jurisdictional problem
here and the discussion infra is briefly informed by a definitive determination on the “date of take” issue that
we already addressed in the second assignment of error.
12
Revised Code 163.041, which is referenced in R.C. 163.04(A), contains a “form of notice” that is
essentially a sample letter to be sent to a landowner. The sample letter contains written notices of receiving
an offer for the value of the property, notice that the landowners are not required to accept that offer, and
notice that if the parties cannot agree the taking may still occur.
-10-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
before the time the agency makes its first offer to purchase the
property. * * *
{¶18} In this case, it is undisputed that landowners received notice letters of
the commissioners’ intent to acquire their property on October 20, 2017, which
contained a copy of an appraisal report assigning value to the appropriated property.
The notice letter stated that if landowners agreed with the value, the county would
pay the appraised value, but if the landowners did not agree to the value, discussions
could be held upon the fair market value of the appropriated land. The notice letter
further stated that if no agreement was reached, a jury of eight people would decide
the fair market value of the land.
{¶19} Landowners initially argued to the trial court that the notice they
received was insufficient and did not comply with R.C. 163.04. The trial court
disagreed, reasoning as follows.
The property owners have individually lived with this
appropriation proceeding[] for six years. In addition to the
notices they received in the original 2012 case, they received a new
notice by letter dated October 20, 2017. In addition, their
attorneys received verbal and written notices of the
Commissioners’ intent to acquire the property and, all parties
received actual notice of the take by way of the fact that the
construction project, the subject of the take was completed years
earlier. What more notice can the legislature expect when the
appropriation takes place after the take is completed?
(Doc. No. 119). We agree with the trial court that landowners were properly put on
notice in this matter pursuant to R.C. 163.04.
-11-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
{¶20} Nevertheless, landowners contend that even if some notice was given,
it was not compliant with R.C. 163.04(B) and (C) because the appraisals that were
submitted had not been updated, meaning that the offers contained therein did not
constitute “good-faith” offers. Landowners contend that R.C. 163.59(E) required
the appraisals to be updated because more than two years had passed since the
original appraisals had been completed. Revised Code 163.59(E) reads as follows.
(E) If information presented by the owner or a material change
in the character or condition of the real property indicates the
need for new appraisal information, or if a period of more than
two years has elapsed since the time of the appraisal of the property,
the head of the acquiring agency concerned shall have the appraisal
updated or obtain a new appraisal. If updated appraisal
information or a new appraisal indicates that a change in the
acquisition offer is warranted, the head of the acquiring agency
shall promptly reestablish the amount of the just compensation
for the property and offer that amount to the owner in writing.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶21} The trial court addressed the matter of whether “updated” appraisals
were necessary in this matter directly, disagreeing that R.C. 163.59(E) mandated
new appraisals here. The trial court found that in a situation such as this where the
date of the take for the original appraisals was 2012, and the date of the take for the
current appropriation action was still 2012, there was no need for new appraisals.
In the case at bar, the date of the take was 2012 and the appraisal
was 2011. It’s this Court’s determination that the two year
update mandated by Rev[.] Code 163.59(E) does not apply to a
case in which the take had already taken place and the date of the
valuation has not changed since the prior appraisal.
-12-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
(Emphasis added.) (18CV19, Doc. No. 119).
{¶22} The trial court was particularly persuaded by the fact that the taking in
this matter had already occurred. This was not a situation where an appropriation
action had been proceeding for so long that the value in the land had changed. Here
the land was valued in 2011 and taken in 2012.
{¶23} As we have already determined in our discussion of the second
assignment of error, the 2012 “date of take” was appropriate in this matter as that
was when the government actually entered upon the land and took it to widen Road
5. It would be illogical to get a new appraisal to value the land as of the date of the
newly filed appropriation action when the property needed to be valued as it was in
2012.13
{¶24} Finally, the landowners argue in their brief that the commissioners
failed to pass a unanimous resolution of necessity here, and that the commissioners
failed to attach the unanimous resolution to the complaints in this case, rendering
the complaints defective.14 The complaints in this matter reference a resolution of
necessity that had been passed; however, the old resolutions from 2012 were
13
We note that the landowners’ rely on Dublin v. Beatley, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 16CAE040021, 2016-
Ohio-5606, in support of its argument that there is no jurisdiction in this matter because proper notice had
not been provided. However, landowners’ reliance is misplaced because Beatley involved a situation where
an individual deliberately evaded service of notice, and an appropriating authority failed to attach appropriate
documents due to neglect, whether excusable or otherwise. Neither of those situations is the case here where
landowners clearly received notice.
14
This argument is really only made in passing in landowners’ brief, but they did emphasize it at oral
argument.
-13-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
attached to the complaints. Nevertheless, the record clearly shows that a unanimous
resolution was passed by the commissioners in November of 2016 after public
hearings on the matter wherein some landowners were present. Landowners
actually included the unanimous resolution and a transcript from the hearings before
the commissioners in a motion to stay these proceedings. (18CV19, Doc. No. 14,
Exs. 15, 16A).
{¶25} Moreover, in the trial court’s entry overruling landowners’ motion for
summary judgment, the trial court stated that it was not even in dispute that “[t]he
refiled case was done by unanimous vote of the Commissioners pursuant to a
freeholders petitioner [sic] submitted pursuant to Rev. Code 5555.06[.]” (18CV19,
Doc. No. 119). Based on the record, it appears disingenuous for the landowners to
now argue that they were somehow deprived of “notice” by any failure to attach the
new resolution to the complaints when they were clearly aware of the new
unanimous resolution, especially since they filed a case regarding the validity of the
freeholder petition, which was being separately addressed in federal court.
{¶26} After reviewing the record and the applicable legal authority, we find
that the notice and good-faith offers in this case provided by commissioners were
compliant with the appropriate statutes. We cannot find under these circumstances
that the trial court erred by declining to dismiss this case for lack of appropriate
notice. Therefore landowners first assignment of error is overruled.
-14-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
Third Assignment of Error
{¶27} In landowners’ third assignment of error, they argue that the trial court
erred by consolidating all of the jury trials.
Standard of Review
{¶28} The management of cases and the decision to consolidate trials is
within the sound discretion of a trial court, and will not be disturbed absent an abuse
of discretion. See Director of Highways v. Kleines, 38 Ohio St.2d 317, 319-320
(1974). An abuse of discretion is a decision that is arbitrary, capricious, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
Analysis
{¶29} In this case, the trial court ordered that all thirteen appropriation cases
would be presented to the same jury of eight individuals. The trial court determined
that the cases involved common questions of law and fact, which permitted
consolidation under Civ.R. 42(A). For reference, Civ.R. 42 reads:
(A) Consolidation.
(1) Generally. If actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may:
(a) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the
actions;
(b) consolidate the actions; or
(c) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
-15-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
{¶30} Here, the landowners argue that the trial court erred in consolidating
the cases, claiming that each property had individual characteristics and different
owners. Landowners also contend that R.C. 163.09(E) specifically granted them
the right to separate, individual trials. Revised Code 163.09(E) reads, “The court,
with the consent of the parties, may order two or more cases to be consolidated and
tried together, but the rights of each owner to compensation, damages, or both shall
be separately determined by the jury in its verdict.” Landowners contend that they
did not consent to a consolidation of trials, so the trials had to be separate. We
disagree.
{¶31} Contrary to landowners’ position, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held
in Director of Highways v. Kleines, 38 Ohio St.2d 317 (1974), that, “A trial court
may order consolidation of appropriation cases pursuant to the provisions of Civ.R.
42(A) without the consent of the parties notwithstanding the provisions of * * *
163.09(E).” (Emphasis added.) Kleines at syllabus. Thus a trial court can
consolidate appropriation cases even when the parties did not agree to do so.
{¶32} Here, the trial court found pursuant to Civ.R. 42(A), there were
common questions of law and fact related to each appropriation case. The trial court
actually explained this to the jury, stating,
I’ve combined these cases together, because we have three cases
that the jury is going to decide. There is [sic] three separate
property owners. I thought it would be better, instead of having
three separate cases, separate cases three weeks, we would do,
-16-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
combine them all, because the property is very similar in location,
and the nature of the construction job is similar to all three pieces
of property. And I thought it would be better to combine them
into one, have one jury decide what is the appropriate amount to
pay the property owners for the property that has been
appropriated.15
(Tr. at 7-8).
{¶33} Moreover, in addition to finding that the cases should be consolidated
due to common questions of law and fact, the trial court actually took steps to
prevent any potential confusion between the properties by the way the trial was
actually structured. The trial court ordered that each property would be dealt with
in its entirety before moving on to the evidence for the next property. More
specifically, in this case, a single jury of eight individuals (with two alternates) was
selected to hear all of the evidence in all of the trials. Opening instructions were
given to the jury, then opening statements were provided concerning the first
property—the Weis property. Evidence was presented by both parties specifically
regarding the Weis property, exhibits were entered, closing arguments were given,
then the jury deliberated regarding just compensation on the Weis property. After
the verdict was returned on the Weis property, the same procedure was followed for
the Maag property. Based on the way the trials were conducted, they were largely
individual and separate, just in rapid succession.
15
At this time the third case had not settled yet, so it seemed that three cases would be presented to the jury.
-17-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
{¶34} Furthermore, the Second District Court of Appeals rejected a very
similar argument against consolidation of trials in an appropriation matter in Village
of Wayne Lakes, Ohio v. Midwest United Industries, Inc., 2d Dist. Darke No. 1231,
1989 WL 125572, *4. In that case, nine separate appropriation actions were
consolidated for trial on the basis that they presented common questions of law and
fact. The Second District determined that the same legal standards and burdens of
proof were applied throughout the cases, and that all the parcels being acquired were
being used for the same purposes, permitting consolidation. This case is similar to
Wayne Lakes, where the burden of proof was the same, common questions of law
and fact were concerned, and all of the appropriated land was being used for
widening Road 5. Thus Wayne Lakes is persuasive authority in support of the trial
court’s decision to consolidate the trials.
{¶35} Finally, we note that a trial court has the right to control its docket
regarding judicial economy. See Bender v. Diemert, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos.
58304, 58368, 1991 WL 39680 * 1 (“Civil R. 42 permits the consolidation of actions
involving common questions of law or fact based upon considerations of judicial
economy.”). Conducting thirteen separate jury trials when the commissioners’
expert appraisal witness was the same for each, the standard of proof was the same
for each, and the purpose of the appropriation was the same for each would be
potentially cumbersome on a trial court, and thus a trial court could certainly find
-18-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
within its discretion that the interests of judicial economy supported consolidation.16
For all of these reasons landowners’ third assignment of error is overruled.
Fourth Assignment of Error
{¶36} In landowners’ fourth assignment of error, they argue that the trial
court erred when it “conditioned a new trial date on the landowners waiving their
constitutional right to separate trials and challenging the consolidation of jury
trials.” Essentially landowners argue that the trial court erred by denying their
motion for a continuance while still denying their request to sever the trials.
Landowners claim that the trial court requested a “quid pro quo” by asking if they
would waive their request to sever the trials if the trial court granted a continuance.
Landowners cite no legal authority whatsoever in support of their argument.17
Standard of Review
{¶37} We review the denial of a motion for continuance under an abuse of
discretion standard. State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981).
Analysis
{¶38} In order to understand landowners’ argument related to this
assignment of error, it is necessary to review a fairly lengthy discussion that
16
We are not suggesting that a trial court must, in the interests of judicial economy, consolidate the cases;
only that it is another potential reason supporting the trial court’s determination.
17
We could disregard this assignment of error for this reason alone, as failure to cite to legal authorities
violates App.R. 16(A)(7). See also App.R. 12(A)(2); State v. Banks, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-12-18, 2013-
Ohio-649, ¶ 34. However, we will continue to address the merits in the interests of justice.
-19-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
occurred between the trial court and the parties’ attorneys at the August 3, 2018
pretrial hearing. In pertinent part, the discussion reads as follows.
THE COURT: I believe the first thing we ought to deal with is
the motion to move the trial date. * * *
***
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Eminent domain appraisers
are overworked, and I did not realize when I talked to her that
she wouldn’t be able to have it done by that trial date. And, she
told me basically it wasn’t until the end of November sometime in
December that she could. She does a lot of appraisal work here.
She does a lot of appraisal work in South Carolina. There’s just
not that many eminent domain appraisers that can actually come
in and testify.
THE COURT: I didn’t know that there were eminent domain
appraisers.
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: The ones that have experience
in eminent domain, yes, Your Honor. The before and after part.
THE COURT: What’s the different [sic] between a[n] eminent
domain appraiser and an appraiser?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: The difference is, is that
normally appraisers come in and do what your property is worth
for the purpose of sale or for a bank mortgage or anything like
that, but in terms of eminent domain they have to come in and say
this is the value before, and then come in and say this is the value
after looking at comps that have to do more aligned to what
happens after the project comes. So that before and after
difference is what I would call an eminent domain appraisal
because they actually have to do two separate appraisals, they do
the one before and they do the one after. The difference between
the before and after is the value of the property taken and the
damages to the residue, if any, and cost to cure, if any. Most
-20-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
appraisers, what you and I would call residential or industrial or
commercial appraisers can’t do that.
THE COURT: Okay. By the way, and before you answer my
other questions, I’m just going to tell you in advance I’m going to
require whoever you’re going to be referring to as an appraiser
to submit an affidavit to the Court if I do in fact grant the
continuance. But when was she first contacted?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: When was she first contacted?
I’ve had other cases with her, Your Honor, so it’s hard for me to
say. Because I mean this case has been looming for a while, but
this actual trial date and the fact that it would actually occur,
sometime this summer.
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Sometime this summer.
THE COURT: This summer, okay. This summer started June
21st, so it wasn’t until after June 21st?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Oh, time passes. I’m not sure,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I can tell you that’s important to me.
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Okay.
THE COURT: Because if knowing when the trial date is, and
knowing, and I assume that you know something about
appropriation work beforehand, that you have to have an
appraiser[,] we have dealt with the issue of appraisal on this case
for probably four years, and I have always been amazed that you
all don’t have an appraiser, you’re arguing over their appraisal,
but you don’t have an appraiser, and I’ve mentioned that before.
And, I’m just absolutely have been amazed in this whole process
that you don’t have one. And never have. So, if you’re telling me
the first time you contact an appraisal [sic] was June, knowing full
well when the trial date was, somebody has to explain to me why
-21-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
it took so long to do that, knowing full well what an appropriation
case is all about, and you’re telling me that you need a special type
of appraiser, why did you wait seven months?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Well, part of the reason, Your
Honor, is we felt like, I’m sorry, we felt like that there, the
precondition has not been met to file the case. And when
appraisers like that, they want money up front. And no
landowner wants to pay that money if they don’t think they’re
still going to have to go to trial. I mean the issue still looms on my
mind that there is no right to have an appropriation case here
because they didn’t do the preconditions for it.18
So, it’s not like you’re hiring a $500 appraisal or something
like that, they have to come up with money up front. And I don’t,
I’m sure that because I have other cases with her, I’ve talked to
her about it, I don’t know, I’ll have to go back and look and see
what if anything I put in writing to her, which can go into an
affidavit to you, so it’s hard for me to tell you exactly when I
contacted her about this case in particular, the 13 landowners.
THE COURT: Okay. Have you tried to contact any other
appraisers?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: I have not because the only
ones that I know of are in Columbus and they’re a lot more money
than she is.
***
THE COURT: Okay. So, okay, let me get this straight. So no
one has contacted an appraiser to appraise this property on behalf
of the landowners at any point in time during this case or the
previous cases until July of 2018; is that correct?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Well, I know that I’ve talked
to have talked to her [sic] from time to time because she came here
in 2011 originally. So it’s hard for me to – She came here to talk
18
This is in reference to the landowners’ challenge to the notice requirements of R.C. 163.04, which we
rejected in the first assignment of error.
-22-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
to people about the appraisal process and what needed to happen
a long time ago.
THE COURT: Okay. As you know, this case is supposed to be
accelerated on the Court’s docket, that’s why the trial was set.
When I originally set the trial I didn’t hear anybody tell me that
that was their problem. It’s a problem on the Court’s schedule,
because I’m scheduled throughout. Basically, I have one week,
and I’m telling you if it complies with everybody else’s schedule,
I’m going to agree to move it a little bit, but I can tell you it’s very
hard for me to move cases, and you obviously didn’t do your job,
totally do your job. And, you know, to come to me in August – By
the way, has she done anything on the case? I mean you contacted
her, let’s say July, June 21st, has she done anything in the last
month, in the last six weeks?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: I don’t remember if I sent her
some. I think I sent her all of a list of people that own property
on the 13, with the TD and parcel numbers, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So now you’re telling me that you – she
has not been formally retained?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: No. Everybody has to sign the
formal retainer thing.
THE COURT: Okay. So that hasn’t been done?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: No. Once she told me she
couldn’t make the, make the time for that trial, no.
THE COURT: Has she told you how long it’s going to take her?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: It usually takes six to eight
weeks to do it.
THE COURT: No, that’s not my question.
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Oh, I’m sorry.
-23-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
THE COURT: Has she told you how long it would take her to do
this?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: She said the end of, she said
the end of November she could have them done.
THE COURT: Okay. If she gets hired today?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Did she tell you how long it would take her
if she had gotten hired in June?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: It wouldn’t have made any
difference in June because she said she had all these other
appraisals, and she can only do so many a month, because I said
oh, my God, you’re not going to get it done, and she said there’s
no way I could have done it in any event if it had come in earlier.
THE COURT: All right. Any further comments on that issue?
***
[COMMISSIONERS’ ATTORNEY]: Thank you, Judge. As you
know from our response to the landowners motion for
continuance, we * * * are still prepared to go to trial October 9th.
[We] * * * took careful notes during our last telephone conference
with this Court April 24th. You made it very clear, Your Honor,
that this trial was going forward October 9th. You said depose
the appraisers. You reminded the parties that this case was going
forward. That the Federal Court had not issued any stay. You,
in your order April 25th denied a motion to stay filed by the
landowners. You denied their motion to separate trials. You
indicated that the County must disclose all of their witnesses by
June 1st. We did that. You indicated that landowners had to
disclose their witnesses by July 2nd. They served us June 29th
with a list of over 30 witnesses who intend to testify, including
their expert witness Debbie Wilcox. So we believed that as of * *
* June 29, 2018, the landowners [k]new that Debbie Wilcox would
be the[ir] appraiser, and they knew the trial date was October 9th
-24-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
through the 12th. So we believe that this is yet another delay tactic
by the landowners, and we think that justice delayed is justice
denied. So we’d ask that the trial go forward.
THE COURT: * * * Let me ask a couple of other questions
dealing with matters that are somewhat related.
A motion in limine has been filed dealing with several issues,
and I’m going to ask [landowners’ attorney] at this point, do you
agree that the value that the appraiser is to do is the value as of
the date of the take?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. What do you believe the value date is?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Well, sometime in 2018.
THE COURT: Okay. What leads you to believe that, that being
an exception as you agree, I assume you would agree that’s
exception to the normal appropriation rule?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Correct. Normally it’s date of
possession.
THE COURT: Why do you believe that’s the case?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Because they don’t get the
benefit of going back to 2011 when the properties [sic] worth less.
That’s a trespass from then until now.
THE COURT: What happens if it was worth more if we’re in
2008 and the take was 2005, you would be seeking to go back to
2005?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: It would depend, Your Honor.
***
-25-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
THE COURT: * * * But, and I want to make sure that your
appraiser doesn’t sit there and say, well, the Judge, you know,
after she’s already done an appraisal as of today, I want to make
sure she does an appraisal as of 2012.
***
THE COURT: All right. My only other date that I am available
to try this case is the week of December 10th. Now also, I assume
at this point in time that if you want me to deal with the issue that
you all weren’t prepared with respect to your appraiser, that you
will agree to the consolidation of all these cases for a trial. Am I
correct that you will do that?
[LANDOWNERS’ ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, I – I just don’t
see how it can be a fair trial for 13 people in four days. I
understand your thought about the chart and all that, but to go
out and have a jury view, they’re not going to be able to
remember, I know it’s not evidence, but what they use it for is to
help them figure out what’s going on with the property.
THE COURT: All right. Then I can tell you I’m not going to
agree to the continuance then. All right. So, now assuming that
we[’]re going to go forward, I assume you [attorneys for
commissioners] don’t have any objections to the property owners’
testifying to the value of their own property.
[COMMISSIONERS’ ATTORNEY]: That’s right, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good.
(Aug. 3, 2018, Tr. at 3-16).19
19
Following this discussion, the parties transitioned into talking about the jury trial procedure itself,
beginning with jury questionnaires and peremptory challenges. Next, the trial court discussed a potential
option for the trial to have the jurors deliberate after the evidence was presented with respect to each
individual property. Landowners’ counsel specifically stated that she thought that option would be fair for
the landowners. To emphasize this point, the trial court stated that the parties should agree as to how they
wanted to try the cases, with the understanding that they would be consolidated, and prepare an entry
regarding that procedure.
-26-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
{¶39} On appeal, landowners now argue that the trial court improperly made
a “quid pro quo” demand toward the end of the preceding dialogue by asking if
landowners were going to withdraw their objection to the consolidation of trials if
the trial court granted a continuance. Landowners argue that the trial court’s request
that they make a concession to waive a right they felt they were entitled to was
arbitrary, unjustified, and warrants reversal in this matter.
{¶40} Commissioners counter by arguing that the trial court’s reasoning in
denying the motion to continue the trial date, when viewed in its entirety rather than
focusing on one line, shows that denying the motion to continue the trial date was
well within the trial court’s discretion and that the trial court did not actually make
some specific “quid pro quo” offer. The commissioners contend that denying the
continuance was reasonable here where there was no “constitutional” right to
separate individual jury trials and where landowners had failed for years to obtain
an appraiser.
{¶41} After reviewing the record, we agree with the commissioners and can
find no reversible error here. Early in the August 3, 2018, pretrial hearing, the trial
court seemed amenable to potentially moving the trial date if it was convenient for
the trial court and the parties. However, upon inquiring regarding the diligence of
the landowners to obtain an appraiser, the trial court was less receptive to a
continuance.
-27-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
{¶42} Landowners had been contesting the valuations of the commissioners’
appraisals for years without ever obtaining their own appraisals specifically
regarding the take.20 The landowners even had numerous months from the filing of
this new appropriation action to secure appraisals, yet they failed to do so. In
addition to how late the appraiser was contacted, the trial court was further baffled
by the fact that at the time of the hearing the appraiser had still not been officially
retained. The landowners would have to agree to the appraiser, and there is no
indication in the record that they definitely would. We also have no actual evidence
in the record beyond counsel’s statements that their desired appraiser actually could
have the appraisals done if the trial date was moved.
{¶43} Moreover, the trial court had to deal with the fact that landowners
wanted their appraiser to potentially appraise the land as of a different “date of take,”
even assuming that all of the landowners agreed to the appraiser in the first place.
Furthermore, the trial court did not prevent landowners from contacting a different
appraiser, such as one of those mentioned from Columbus, to see if that appraiser
could have had the work done by the scheduled trial date.
{¶44} As the trial court emphasized, appropriation cases are accelerated on
a trial court’s docket. Clear orders had been issued to prepare for trial on October
20
The Weis family did have an appraisal conducted of their property before the take, and the appraised
amount was the same as that reached by the commissioners’ appraiser ($90,000). Despite having this
appraisal done, the Weis family did not do an “after” taking appraisal with the same appraiser to compare
any loss in value.
-28-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
9, 2018. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot find that there
was reversible error here in denying the motion to continue. We do not accept the
argument of the landowners that some impermissible “quid pro quo” was attempted
here by the trial court. Therefore, landowners’ fourth assignment of error is
overruled.
Fifth Assignment of Error
{¶45} In landowners’ fifth assignment of error, they argue that the trial court
erred when it excluded their rebuttal witness, Robert Hunt.
Standard of Review
{¶46} We review a trial court’s determination to bar a rebuttal witness under
an abuse of discretion standard. See Stevens v. S.W.L.H.S. Invest. Partners, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-15-1129, 2017-Ohio-415, ¶ 62, appeal not allowed 151 Ohio St.3d
1425, 2017-Ohio-8371.
Analysis
{¶47} After the landowners and the commissioners had presented their cases-
in-chief in this matter, the landowners attempted to call a rebuttal witness. A sidebar
was then held between the parties’ attorneys and the trial court, wherein the trial
court asked who the rebuttal witness was, and what he or she was going to testify
about. Landowners identified Robert Hunt as their rebuttal witness, indicating that
he was an appraiser, but he had not appraised these properties specifically. Rather,
-29-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
Hunt was going to testify regarding a different appraisal methodology for valuing
land, thus undermining or potentially contradicting the commissioners’ appraiser.
{¶48} The trial court inquired as to why the witness had not been identified
previously, and landowners indicated that he was a “rebuttal-only” witness. The
trial court stated, “That’s not a rebuttal witness, and you know that. * * * It’s an
expert witness on your behalf. * * * He’s rendering an opinion on the testimony of
the report that you had for seven years.” (Tr. at 396). The trial court then further
inquired as to what specifically the landowners claimed to be rebutting with Hunt’s
testimony, and landowners’ counsel stated that Hunt was going to indicate how he
valued the property frontage abutting the roadway in a different manner than how
the commissioners’ appraiser had valued it. After hearing this argument, the trial
court excluded Hunt’s testimony, but allowed his testimony to be proffered.
{¶49} On appeal, landowners argue that the trial court erred by preventing
the testimony from their “rebuttal” witness because they contend that generally
rebuttal witnesses do not have to be disclosed prior to trial, citing Phung v. Waste
Mgt., Inc, 71 Ohio St.3d 408 (1994), in support of their argument.
{¶50} Commissioners respond by arguing that the trial court’s exclusion of
Hunt’s testimony was proper because Hunt was going to be testifying in an expert
capacity, which has different rules with respect to disclosure than those of normal
rebuttal witnesses discussed in Phung, making it inapplicable here. In addition,
-30-
Case Nos. 12-19-01, 12-19-02
commissioners argue that Hunt was not a proper rebuttal witness because he was
going to essentially present his own valuation methodology. Commissioners
contend that this new or different methodology should have been presented in
landowners’ case-in-chief, not in rebuttal.
{¶51} After reviewing the record, we agree with the arguments of the
commissioners. Given that Hunt wanted to present his own methodology as to
valuation, he should have been called in landowners’ case-in-chief to establish their
version of the case.
{¶52} Moreover, as he was offering testimony beyond that of a lay witness,
that testimony being specific ways of valuing property frontage versus the rest of
the property, his disclosure would have been necessary in this matter as suggested
by the commissioners.
{¶53} Because of these factors, at the very least, we cannot find that the trial
court abused its discretion in this matter by preventing Hunt’s testimony. For these
reasons, landowners’ fifth assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶54} For the foregoing reasons landowners’ assignments of error are
overruled and the judgments of the Putnam County Common Pleas Court are
affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
-31-