Title: Painesville Mini Storage, Inc. v. Painesville

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Painesville Mini Storage, Inc. v. Painesville, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-920.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-920 
PAINESVILLE MINI STORAGE, INC., APPELLANT, v. CITY OF PAINESVILLE, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Painesville Mini Storage, Inc. v. Painesville,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-920.] 
Appropriation proceedings — Claim of interference with property rights was 
barred by statute of limitations — Claimed interference was a one-time 
event, not a continuing violation — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2009-1616 — Submitted March 9, 2010 — Decided March 16, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, 
No. 2008-L-092, 2009-Ohio-3656. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion 
of appellee, city of Painesville, for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Painesville Mini Storage, Inc., for a writ of mandamus to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
compel the city to commence an appropriation proceeding for its alleged taking of 
appellant’s property. 
{¶ 2} Regardless of whether the R.C. 2305.07 six-year statute of 
limitations or the R.C. 2305.09(E) four-year statute of limitations applies to 
appellant’s takings claim, the claim is barred.  See State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie 
MetroParks, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2010-Ohio-606, __ N.E.2d ___, ¶ 30; see also 
State ex rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-6716, 780 N.E.2d 
998, ¶ 30-31 (a case decided prior to the enactment of R.C. 2305.09(E) in which 
the court held that the six-year limitation period of R.C. 2305.07 was appropriate 
for mandamus actions brought to compel appropriation proceedings).  Appellant 
did not raise its takings claim in the underlying mandamus action until June 2008, 
more than six years after September 2000, when the city issued to J.B.H. 
Properties, Inc., the building permit that appellant claims constituted a taking of 
its private property. 
{¶ 3} Finally, the continuous-violation doctrine did not toll the statute of 
limitations, because the city did not perform any additional challenged actions 
after it issued the permit.  Every event that occurred thereafter “was merely a 
continuation of the effects of that solitary event rather than the occurrence of new 
discrete acts.”  Nickoli, at ¶ 33; see also Ohio Midland, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of 
Transp. (C.A.6, 2008), 286 Fed.Appx. 905, 912, quoting Tenenbaum v. Caldera 
(C.A.6, 2002), 45 Fed.Appx. 416, 419 (“ ‘the present effects of past [violations]    
* * * do not trigger a continuing violations exception’ ” to the statute of 
limitations). 
{¶ 4} We deny the city’s request for oral argument because the parties’ 
briefs are sufficient to resolve this case.  State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. 
Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-3761, 913 N.E.2d 967, ¶ 25. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would grant a writ of mandamus. 
__________________ 
Paul V. Wolf, for appellant. 
Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., L.P.A., John T. McLandrich, Frank 
H. Scialdone, and Tami Z. Hannon, for appellee. 
______________________