Opinion ID: 4537099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Unauthorized-Taking Counts

Text: {¶ 29} This court has previously dismissed counts V and VI of Feltner’s complaint, both of which raised issues related to an unauthorized taking of property by the government. See Feltner, 155 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2019-Ohio-943, 119 N.E.3d 431. However, I would have granted an alternative writ on those counts and ordered briefing. Id. {¶ 30} I did not write a dissenting opinion to the order dismissing these claims, but on further review, it has become apparent that the dismissal of those claims is exceedingly bothersome. There is no doubt that the facts alleged by Feltner in this case are disconcerting, especially in light of the fact that his allegations in counts V and VI had to be taken as true. Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 650 N.E.2d 863 (1995) (when reviewing a motion to dismiss, all material allegations in the complaint must be construed as true). While I express no opinion on the merits of Feltner’s takings claims, after reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, I wonder if the claims would have had merit. {¶ 31} I recognize that there were arguably some procedural issues with Feltner’s takings claims, such as whether Feltner had properly asserted a claim in mandamus. But I would have welcomed briefing on the issue, because I am bothered by the possibility that the BOR foreclosed on Feltner’s property, which was worth around $144,500 and on which he owed $65,189.94 in taxes, and then transferred that property to the Land Bank, all without providing him notice of the final judgment 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO and without remitting the remaining value of the property to Feltner. Indeed, Feltner claims that the property was not sold but was merely transferred to a third party after the Land Bank received the deed to the property. The whole scheme is unsettling and just seems wrong. Thus, although I previously voted to grant an alternative writ in regard to counts V and VI, after reviewing the evidence and the briefs that have now been submitted, I renew my objection to this court’s failure to address those claims. I believe that the court should have granted an alternative writ in regard to those counts, if only to have peace of mind that Feltner received some due process and that the government did not receive a windfall at Feltner’s expense.