Case Title: State ex rel. Wasserman v. Fremont

Citation: 2012-Ohio-27

Docket Number: 2011-0683

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Wasserman v. Fremont, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-27.] 
 
 
 
 
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-27 
THE STATE EX REL. WASSERMAN ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CITY OF  
FREMONT ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Wasserman v. Fremont,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-27.] 
Court of appeals erred in granting a writ of mandamus to compel an 
appropriation proceeding when the court had not yet determined that 
relators had met their burden of proving that their property had been 
taken by the city. 
(No. 2011-0683—Submitted December 7, 2011—Decided January 10, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County, 
No. S-10-031, 2011-Ohio-1269. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals granting to 
appellees, Stanley and Kathryn Wasserman, a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellants, the city of Fremont, Ohio, and its mayor, Terry Overmyer, to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
commence an appropriation action “to determine whether or not a taking actually 
occurred in this case and how much compensation, if any, is due from” appellants.  
State ex rel. Wasserman v. Fremont, 6th Dist. No. S-10-031, 2011-Ohio-1269, 
¶ 9.  The Wassermans alleged that when the city constructed a reservoir on its 
property, the city damaged drainage tiles belonging to the Wassermans, and that 
the city’s actions interfered with the Wassermans’ use of their drainage easement 
over the city’s property and with their use of their property, due to inadequate 
drainage.  Thus, the Wassermans alleged that the city’s actions constituted a 
taking of their property. 
{¶ 2} It is true that “[m]andamus is the appropriate action to compel 
public authorities to institute appropriation proceedings where an involuntary 
taking of private property is alleged.”  State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts. (2002), 
95 Ohio St.3d 59, 63, 765 N.E.2d 345, judgment modified in part on other 
grounds, 96 Ohio St.3d 379, 2002-Ohio-4905, 775 N.E.2d 493; see also State ex 
rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-2163, 826 
N.E.2d 832, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 3} But to be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus to compel an 
appropriation proceeding, relators in these cases must do more than merely allege 
a taking—they must establish that a taking of their property by a public authority 
has occurred.  See State ex rel. BSW Dev. Group v. Dayton (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 
338, 344, 699 N.E.2d 1271 (relator in mandamus action seeking writ to compel 
city to commence appropriation proceeding had the burden of proving a 
compensable taking).  That is, “[i]n these [mandamus] actions, the court, as the 
trier of fact and law, must determine whether the private property had been taken 
by the public authority.”  Id. at 342, citing State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake 
(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 108, 637 N.E.2d 319.  Thus, “appropriation 
proceedings may be compelled through mandamus, but * * * the court must 
initially determine that the pertinent property has been appropriated.”  Levin at 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
109; see also State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cincinnati, 125 Ohio St.3d 385, 2010-Ohio-
1473, 928 N.E.2d 706 (affirming judgment granting writ of mandamus to compel 
appropriation proceeding on physical-taking claim that had been established by 
relators and denying writ of mandamus on regulatory-taking claim that had not 
been proven). 
{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals erred in granting a writ of 
mandamus to compel the city and its mayor to commence an appropriation 
proceeding when the court had not yet determined that the Wassermans’ property 
had been taken by the city.  Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of 
the court of appeals granting the writ of mandamus and remand the cause to that 
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  These further 
proceedings should permit the parties to submit evidence concerning whether a 
taking of the Wassermans’ property has occurred.  The Wassermans must 
establish their entitlement to the writ by clear and convincing evidence.  See State 
ex rel. Doner v. Zody, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2011-Ohio-6117, ___ N.E.2d ___, 
paragraph three of the syllabus. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Davies, Ruck & Speweik, Ltd., Corey J. Speweik, Nathan T. Oswald, and 
J. Douglas Ruck, for appellees. 
 
Robert G. Hart, Fremont Law Director, for appellants. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Solicitor 
General, and Michael L. Stokes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, urging 
reversal for amicus curiae state of Ohio. 
______________________