Case Title: State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5637

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-05T00:00:00Z

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. 2012-Ohio-5637.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5637 
THE STATE EX REL. DONER ET AL. v. ZEHRINGER, DIRECTOR, 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. 2012-Ohio-5637.] 
(No. 2009-1292—Submitted December 4, 2012—Decided December 5, 2012.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action by relators, owners of land located 
downstream from the western spillway of Grand Lake St. Marys, for a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondents, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and 
its director, to initiate appropriation proceedings for the physical taking of their 
property resulting from flooding caused by a spillway constructed by respondents 
and the state’s lake-level-management practices.  On December 1, 2011, the court 
granted a writ of mandamus “to compel respondents to commence appropriation 
proceedings to determine the amount of their taking of the property.”  State ex rel. 
Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 958 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 86.  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
a writ issued by the court that same day, respondents were ordered to comply with 
the court’s order “immediately upon receipt of the writ.” 
{¶ 2} Following 
failed 
settlement 
negotiations, 
the 
state 
filed 
appropriation cases for the property of relators Doners and Ebbings.  On 
September 6, 2012, all of the relators with the exception of the Doners and the 
Ebbings filed a motion for an order for respondents to show cause why they 
should not be held in contempt of the court’s December 1, 2011 writ of 
mandamus.  We granted the motion and scheduled a show-cause hearing for 
December 4, 2012. 
{¶ 3} Upon considering the parties’ evidence and arguments, we hold 
that relators have established by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that 
respondents are in contempt of the court’s December 1, 2011 writ.  See Pugh v. 
Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136, 139, 472 N.E.2d 1085 (1984).  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. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, BELFANCE, and MCGEE 
BROWN, JJ., concur. 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 
EVE V. BELFANCE, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for CUPP, J. 
__________________ 
 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 4} The burden of proof for the moving party in a civil contempt action 
is clear and convincing evidence.  See Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio 
St.2d 250, 253, 416 N.E.2d 610 (1980).  I would find that the relators have failed 
to meet their burden of proof.  Therefore I dissent. 
{¶ 5} While the respondents may be proceeding at a pace that is 
unacceptable to the relators, our only mandate to respondents was to proceed 
“immediately.”   We did not set forth any guidelines, let alone a deadline, as to 
when the appropriations must be completed. 
{¶ 6} Respondents have hired surveyors and property appraisers.  The 
surveyors have begun surveying the properties at issue, and the appraisers have 
begun appraising the properties as the surveys are completed.  Both are necessary 
for appropriation proceedings.  Further, the respondents attempted to negotiate a 
global settlement with the relators, albeit without success.  This hardly constitutes 
clear and convincing evidence that respondents are in contempt of the writ merely 
because they are proceeding at a pace that is slower than the relators and the court 
desire.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent.   
 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_____________________ 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, L.L.P., Bruce L. Ingram, Joseph R. 
Miller, Thomas H. Fusonie, and Martha C. Brewer, for relators. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William J. Cole. Mindy Worley, 
Jennifer S.M. Croskey, Michael L. Stokes, Dale T. Vitale, Daniel J. Martin, and 
Tara L. Paciorek, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents. 
____________________________