Case Title: State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer

Citation: 2014-Ohio-2102

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2102.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-2102 
THE STATE EX REL. DONER ET AL. v. ZEHRINGER, DIR., ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2102.] 
Mandamus—Request to hold respondent in contempt denied. 
(No. 2009-1292—Submitted April 30, 2014—Decided May 21, 2014.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
____________________ 
{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon a show-cause 
hearing held before the court on April 30, 2014.  Upon consideration thereof, 
relators’ request to hold respondents in contempt is denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
PFEIFER, J., concurring. 
{¶ 2} The parties are back before this court upon the relators’ motion for 
an order for respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
and an order for court-supervised mediation.  Upon consideration of the 
representations of respondent Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) 
that it has available sufficient funds to fully compensate all relator-landowners’ 
claims as they may be determined by jury verdict or settlement and that it is able 
to proceed to trial at an accelerated pace as may be determined by the Mercer 
County Common Pleas Court with the possible assistance of visiting judges 
appointed by the chief justice, I concur with this court’s decision to deny the 
relators’ motion for a further contempt order. 
{¶ 3} This motion brought about the third proceeding before the court in 
this dispute over flooding caused by the construction in 1997 of a new spillway on 
the dam that created Grand Lake St. Marys.  In 2011, this court found that a 
taking of the disputed property below the spillway had occurred.  This court 
issued a writ of mandamus to compel ODNR to commence appropriation 
proceedings to determine the amount of the taking.  State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 
130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 958 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 86.  The two 
subsequent enforcement proceedings before this court relate to ODNR’s 
prosecution, or lack thereof, of those ordered appropriation proceedings. 
{¶ 4} ODNR was brought before this court in December 2012 on a 
motion to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for its delays in 
instituting the appropriation cases.  In responding to the 2012 motion for 
contempt, the state argued in briefing and oral argument that it was proceeding 
with deliberate speed on the appropriation cases.  The state represented to this 
court that for one category of landowners, the extent of the taking had been 
established but that appraisals needed to be completed before appropriation cases 
could commence.  This court concluded that ODNR was in contempt of the 
court’s 2011 order to commence appropriation proceedings.  To correct that state 
of affairs, this court issued the following order: 
 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
We order respondents to complete all appraisals on relators’ 
parcels for the 2003-flood-level cases within 90 days and to file all 
appropriation cases for these parcels within 120 days.  For the 
remaining 20 parcels that respondents claim they have not yet 
surveyed because they involve flooding above the 2003 flood 
level, respondents are ordered to institute declaratory-judgment 
actions in the Mercer County Common Pleas Court within 30 days 
to determine the legal rights of the parties for those parcels.  We 
deny relators’ request for attorney fees and for a fine. 
 
State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer, 134 Ohio St.3d 326, 2012-Ohio-5637, 982 
N.E.2d 864, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 5} The 2003-flood-level cases were so denominated because the 
extent of the taking of those parcels had been established to be the level of the 
2003 flood.  We ordered appraisals for the 2003-flood-level cases because ODNR 
stated that surveys establishing the extent of the taking had already been 
completed.  The other 20 parcels were not reached by the level of the 2003 
flood—thus, the extent of the take had not been established—so the state was 
ordered to determine the rights of the owners of those 20 parcels. 
{¶ 6} Now, relators are back before this court upon the filing of another 
contempt motion, alleging, among other things, that the state has abandoned the 
2003 flood level as establishing the extent of the taking.  There is no doubt that 
the state represented to this court in the 2012 proceeding that the 2003 flood level 
set the extent of the taking for the parcels that were affected by that flood. 
{¶ 7} In its brief before the 2012 hearing, in an attempt to demonstrate 
the progress it had made in prosecuting appropriations cases,  ODNR stated, 
“ODNR developed a professional and consistent basis for conducting the more 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
than 90 surveys needed to delineate the extent of the flowage easements, and that 
survey work is virtually complete.” 
{¶ 8} By the time of the hearing on the motion for contempt, counsel for 
ODNR reported to this court that the surveys of properties within the 2003 flood 
level—undertaken to delineate the extent of the taking—were complete. 
{¶ 9} The state explained in its brief its method for determining the 
extent of the taking: 
 
Although Relators provided rough drawings of the 
approximate area of flooding on their parcels in their petition for 
the Writ of Mandamus, this Court found only that a taking 
occurred, but did not determine the extent of flowage easements 
alleged to be taken on each of the parcels.  Instead, this Court 
directed that the Mercer County Common Pleas Court should 
determine that issue.  The State, cognizant of the trial court’s prior 
rulings in the previous landowner actions which had already [been] 
litigated, knew that the trial court had adopted the extent of the 
take as the height of the 2003 July flood event documented by the 
Mercer County Engineer.  ODNR used this data from the County 
Engineer 
and 
airborne 
laser 
measurements 
from 
Ohio’s 
Geographically Referenced Information Program and GPS field 
measurements. * * * Further, in one of the earlier cases, the trial 
court held that a survey and metes and bounds legal description 
must be prepared so that a jury could accurately determine 
compensation. 
 
(Footnote omitted.) 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
{¶ 10} At oral argument in December 2012 on the contempt motion, 
counsel for ODNR explained the process required for bringing appropriation 
cases to court.  Justice Lanzinger asked ODNR’s counsel to relate what the 
agency had done to demonstrate that it was fast-tracking the cases.  Counsel stated 
that establishing the extent of the taking came first: 
 
Immediately, what happened was deciding what even needs 
to be surveyed.  What does the department think the taking is? 
What does the department think the borderline should be between 
the flowage easement and the unencumbered property?  So that 
was the first point.  The second point was then getting the surveys 
done to create legal descriptions for those flowage easements. 
 
{¶ 11} ODNR’s counsel told this court that surveys established the extent 
of the taking and that the surveys were based on the extent of the 2003 flood: 
 
[ODNR Counsel:] The first effort had to be surveys * * *.  
First off to determine what possibly the taking even is.  Because 
that was an issue that this court left up to the trial court in Mercer 
County to determine—the extent of the taking on each individual 
parcel.  So the first effort of the department was to do surveys and 
create legal descriptions for those takes on each parcel. 
[Justice Pfeifer:] And how did you determine that? Was 
there a hearing in Mercer County to determine the extent of the 
take or— 
[ODNR Counsel:] No, the department relied on some 
earlier litigation. There was an earlier set of cases involving the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
spillway in which it had been determined that the 2003 flood level 
was the extent of the taking. 
 
{¶ 12} ODNR’s statements at the show-cause hearing and in its brief 
conclusively showed that ODNR had completed all the surveys of property 
involving the 2003 flood, thus establishing the extent of the taking of those 
properties. 
{¶ 13} In explaining to Justice O’Donnell why the 20 parcels in the 
declaratory-judgment cases had not been surveyed, counsel acknowledged that it 
was because for those parcels only, the extent of a taking had not been 
established—unlike the 2003-flood-level cases: 
 
Because there is a legal issue. * * * Because they need to 
know where is the flood level. Well, the flood level that was 
established by the Mercer County Common Pleas Court was the 
level of the 2003 flood, so that’s the extent of the taking.  If you 
have parcels whose elevations are above that flood level, then what 
do you survey? 
 
{¶ 14} This court ordered appraisals in the 2003-flood-level cases because 
ODNR represented to this court that the surveys establishing the extent of the 
taking in those cases had been completed.  All that was left to do was the 
appraisals before appropriation proceedings could begin in earnest.  This court, 
working from the representation of the state that the extent of the takings had been 
established, ordered an aggressive schedule to get appropriation proceedings 
underway. 
{¶ 15} An efficient, orderly, and prompt resolution of all of the relators’ 
claims continues to be our intent and expectation.  It appears from the exhibits 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
filed in this matter that the Mercer County Common Pleas Court has a 
comprehensive understanding of both the legal and factual issues that ODNR is 
attempting to litigate and relitigate; that court represents the proper forum to 
determine those matters in an expeditious manner.  Accordingly, I concur. 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
____________________ 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Bruce L. Ingram, Joseph R. 
Miller, Thomas H. Fusonie, and Martha Brewer Motley, for relators. 
Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., Scott D. Phillips, Brian W. Fox, Frank J. Reed 
Jr., and Matthew C. Blickensderfer, for respondents. 
_________________________