Court Opinion

ID: 9385945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 20:07:07.727356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:00.750114
License: Public Domain

[Cite as West v. Canton, 2023-Ohio-1193.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                      STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THOMAS WEST                                   JUDGES:
                                               Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellant                   Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                               Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                               Case No. 2022CA00077
 CITY OF CANTON, ET AL.,

         Defendant-Appellee                    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                     Appeal from the Stark County Court of
                                               Common Pleas, Case No. 2021CV1042

 JUDGMENT:                                     Reversed and Remanded

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                       April 10, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellant                       For Defendant-Appellee

 BRETT H. HILLYER                              KEVIN R. L’HOMMEDIEU
 201 N. Main Street                            VIVIANNE WHALEN DUFFRIN
 P.O. Box 272                                  CARRIE D’ANDREA
 Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683                      Canton Law Department
                                               218 Cleveland Avenue, S.W.
                                               Canton, Ohio 44701-4218
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                                 2

Hoffman, J.
          {¶1}     Plaintiff-appellant Thomas West appeals the May 20, 2022 Judgment Entry

entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment

in favor of defendants-appellees City of Canton, et al. (“the City”).

                                  STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

          {¶2}     Joyce Siedler owned the real property located at 723 14 th Street NW,

Canton, Stark County, Ohio (“the Property”).1 Siedler abandoned the Property in 2016,

when she moved to Canal Fulton, Ohio. Thereafter, Siedler failed to maintain the Property

and it fell into a state of disrepair. Among the issues related to the Property were broken

doors and windows, accumulating garbage, high grass, and vandalism due to squatters.

The City conducted several meetings with Siedler to address the mounting violations of

the City Building Code. Appellant attended at least one of these meetings, sometime

around August, 2019.

          {¶3}     Siedler failed to fix the code violations. In addition, she failed to register the

Property as required by Canton Ordinances and did not secure the Property from

squatters. The City consequently had to secure the Property. On April 9, 2021, the City

issued a Notice of Unsafe Structure/Order to Repair or Demolish (“the Notice and Order”)

to Siedler. The Notice and Order advised Siedler:

                   Pursuant to Part 13 of the Canton Codified Ordinances, you have the

          right to appeal this notice and order. The appeal shall be made in writing

1   Siedler is not a party to this Appeal and was not a party in the underlying matter.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                        3

       within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice and must be mailed or

       delivered to the Chief Building Official * * *.

              Please contact * * * within 10 days of the date of this notice to inform

       us of your plan of action to repair or demolish the structure.

              April 9, 2021 Notice of Unsafe Structure/Order to Repair or Demolish.

       {¶4}   Siedler did not appeal the Notice and Order.

       {¶5}   On July 2, 2021, Appellant took title of the Property via quitclaim deed,

which was recorded in the Stark County Recorder’s Office on or about July 6, 2021. The

City subsequently contracted with local companies to abate the asbestos, remove trees,

and, ultimately, demolish the Property. Appellant attempted to persuade the City not to

demolish the Property.

       {¶6}   On July 22, 2021, Appellant filed the instant action, asserting a claim for

conversion and seeking declaratory judgment. Appellant filed a motion for injunctive relief

on the same day. The City filed a timely answer. On August 13, 2021, the trial court

issued an Agreed Judgment Entry, staying the demolition of the Property. The parties

recommended discovery plan included mediation after the trial court ruled on dispositive

motions. Via Judgment Entry filed September 21, 2021, the trial court referred the case

to mediation, which was scheduled for April 4, 2022.

       {¶7}   The City filed a motion for summary judgment on March 15, 2022. Upon

motion by the City, the trial court cancelled the mediation. Appellant filed his response to

the City’s motion for summary judgment on April 19, 2022. The City filed its reply on May

2, 2022.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                     4

      {¶8}   Via Judgment Entry filed May 20, 2022, the trial court granted the City’s

motion for summary judgment. The trial court found the City was immune from liability on

Appellant’s conversion claim.   The trial court further found Appellant’s requests for

declaratory judgment and injunctive relief failed as a matter of law as Appellant lacked

standing to challenge the Demolition Order as he was not the titled owner of the Property

at the time said order was issued.

      {¶9}   It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals, raising the following

assignments of error:

             I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT

      HAD NO STANDING IN WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE

      ORDER OF THE CITY OF CANTON ORDERING THE TEAR DOWN OF

      HIS HOME.

             II. BY ALLOWING THE CITY OF CANTON TO TEAR DOWN THE

      PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT, THE TRIAL COURT IS VOIDING ANY

      AND ALL VALIDITY OF A QUITCLAIM DEED UNDER OHIO LAW.

             III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY

      JUDGMENT AS THE APPELLEE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE

      THAT ITS AGENTS INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AFTER THE NOTICE

      WAS SERVED.

             IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING COMPLIANCE

      WITH THE DEFECTIVE TEARDOWN ORDER THAT MIRRORS THE
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                             5

       LANGUAGE PREVIOUSLY EXAMINED BY THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT

       OF APPEALS AND IS IN VIOLATION OF CANTON CITY ORDINANCES.

                                                   I

       {¶10} In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends the trial court erred in

finding he did not have standing to challenge the City’s demolition order. We agree.

       {¶11} Standing “is defined at its most basic as [a] party's right to make a legal

claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right.” Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of

Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375, 2007-Ohio-5024, 875 N.E.2d 550, ¶ 27, quoting Black's

Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004) 1442 (Internal quotations omitted. Emphasis added in

original.) Subject-matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, is “the courts' statutory or

constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-

Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11 (Internal quotations and citation omitted. Emphasis

added in original.) It is determined without regard to the rights of the parties involved in

the case. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d

1040, ¶ 19. While standing is jurisdictional in the sense a lack of standing is “certainly a

fundamental flaw that would require a court to dismiss the action * * *” and would subject

a decision to reversal on appeal, “a particular party's standing, or lack thereof, does not

affect the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court * * *.” Id. at ¶ 23. This is because standing

implicates a court's jurisdiction over a particular case. Id. at ¶ 22. A court's jurisdiction

over a particular case refers to the court's ability to rule on a given case which is within

the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Pratts, supra at ¶ 12. Determining whether a court
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                        6

has jurisdiction over a particular case requires consideration of the rights of the parties.

Kuchta, supra at ¶ 19.

       {¶12} In its May 20, 2022 Judgment Entry, the trial court stated:

              At the time that the Demolition Order was issued in this case, West

       was not the titled owner of the Property. The Property was owned by Joyce

       Siedler. The Demolition Order in this matter was issued on April 9, 2021.

       Siedler was advised that the City of Canton would demolish if the needed

       repairs were not completed, or an appeal filed with the Board of Building

       Appeals within 30 days. * * * Joyce Siedler failed to make the necessary

       repairs and failed to file an appeal. West purchased the Property knowing

       that a Demolition Order had been issued.

              The Court finds that West lacks standing to challenge the Demolition

       Order issued to Joyce Siedler in this case on April 9, 2021. (Footnote

       omitted).

              May 20, 2022 Judgment Entry at p. 5, unpaginated.

       {¶13} Appellant took title of the Property via quitclaim deed on July 2, 2021.

       {¶14} “[A] quit-claim deed transfers only those rights which a grantor has at the

time of the conveyance.” Wilhelm v. Coverstone, 2nd Dist. Miami App. No. 2017-CA-25,

2018-Ohio-3978, 118 N.E.3d 970, ¶ 55 (Citations omitted). These rights include both

adverse and beneficial equities existing at the time of conveyance. Maher v. Cleveland
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                         7

Union Stockyards Co., 55 Ohio App. 412, 9 N.E.2d 995 (1936), at paragraph five of the

syllabus.

       {¶15} Since a grantee's rights are the same as those of his grantor, we find

Appellant took the Property subject to whatever rights Siedler had against the City. We

find the City’s argument and the trial court’s decision conflates the separate, legally-

distinct concepts of subject-matter jurisdiction and standing. Accordingly, we find the trial

court erred in finding Appellant’s lacked standing to asset his claims for declaratory

judgment and injunctive relief.

       {¶16} Appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained.

                                                IV

       {¶17} In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant maintains the trial court erred in

requiring compliance with a defective teardown order. Specifically, Appellant asserts the

Demolition Order failed to advise him of the exact repairs needed to be performed to bring

the Property to code; therefore, was “woefully insufficient to take a property right.” Brief

of Appellant at 17. In support of his position, Appellant relies on this Court’s decision in

Nucklos v. Bd. of Bldg. Appeals, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2001CA00092, 2001 WL 1606806.

       {¶18} The appellants in Nucklos owned a commercial building, which had been

vacant for ten (10) years. Id. at *1. The appellants received a letter from the Code

Enforcement Supervisor for the City of Canton Building Department, advising them the

subject property “must be brought up to minimum housing standards and regulation as

set forth by the City of Canton, or demolition procedures will be taken.” Id. The letter,

which was sent via regular and certified mail, further informed the appellants the property
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                       8

would be demolished 30 days from receipt of the letter unless the property was brought

up to code. Id. A “Legal Notice of Demolition Order” issued on the same date. Id.

       {¶19} The appellants objected to the Demolition Order. Id. at *2. The Board of

Building Appeals conducted a hearing on the appellants’ objections and subsequently

voted to uphold the Demolition Order. Id. The appellants filed an appeal of the Board's

decision to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the decision of the

Board. The appellants appealed the trial court’s decision to this Court. Id. On appeal,

the appellants argued the letter from the Code Enforcement Supervisor for the City of

Canton Building Department and the “Legal Notice of Demolition” were insufficient to

commence demolition proceedings against the appellants' building under the City of

Canton's Codified Ordinances. Id. at *3. We agreed, finding:

              Clearly, neither the letter nor the legal notice provide appellants with

       a “statement of the particulars in which the building or structure is unsafe”.

       While appellants were advised that their building failed to comply with

       minimum housing standards, they were never informed exactly what repairs

       needed to be performed to bring the building up to code. Without such a

       statement of the “particulars”, appellants were, in essence, deprived of a

       reasonable time in which to repair the building. Id. at *4.

       {¶20} We find Nucklos to be distinguishable from the instant action. Unlike the

appellants in Nucklos, Siedler did not appeal the City’s Demolition Order. Having failed

to do so, any challenge to the sufficiency of said order is waived.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00077                                                    9

      {¶21} Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.

                                         II, III

      {¶22} Based upon our disposition of Appellants' first assignment of error, we find

Appellant’s second and third assignments of error to be premature.

      {¶23} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is reversed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur