Opinion ID: 6316646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: How does the lead opinion get things so wrong?

Text: {¶ 89} The reader might want to stop right here. What has been said in the previous section is all that is needed to decide this case. But, if one finds the lead opinion’s analysis tempting (or is curious how it gets things so wrong), then read on. {¶ 90} The lead opinion gets to where it gets through a process that goes like this. Step one, review and reverse the determination by the trial and appellate courts that there has been no violation of the Use Restriction, even though that issue has not been appealed and is not in front of us. Step two, decree that use restrictions and transfer restrictions are functionally equivalent and subject to the same legal standards. Step three, cherry pick a handful of cases involving things other than absolute restraints on alienation; then apply the standards from these cases to find the Transfer Restriction is valid. {¶ 91} Every step of this analysis is wrong. A. Contrary to what the lead opinion says, we don’t ordinarily review issues not in front of us {¶ 92} The lead opinion begins by acknowledging that “no party to this appeal seeks reversal” of the “factual finding by the trial court that no violation of the use restriction had occurred as a result of the subsurface activity.” Lead opinion at ¶ 15. But then it says that “because this court reviews legal issues de novo, we 34 January Term, 2022 are not constrained to accept the appellate court’s legal analysis” as to whether there was a violation of the Use Restriction. Id. at ¶ 15. {¶ 93} Huh? Of course, we review legal issues de novo. But we only review issues de novo that have been raised by the parties. The standard of review for legal issues has nothing to do with the long-established rule that we don’t review issues that are not in front of us. See, e.g., State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 20; Household Fin. Corp. v. Porterfield, 24 Ohio St.2d 39, 46, 263 N.E.2d 243 (1970); Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, 155 Ohio St.3d 567, 2018-Ohio-5088, 122 N.E.3d 1228, ¶ 11; United States v. Sineneng-Smith, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1575, 1579, 206 L.Ed.2d 866 (2020). {¶ 94} We are often reminded that courts “ ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right’ ”; instead, they “ ‘normally decide only questions presented by the parties.’ ” Sineneng-Smith at ___, 140 S.Ct. at 1579, quoting United States v. Samuels, 808 F. 2d 1298, 1301 (8th Cir.1987) (Arnold, J.,