Girard v. Adovasio

2026 Ohio 974

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 2025-T-0038
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Girard v. Adovasio, 2026-Ohio-974.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY

CITY OF GIRARD, CASE NO. 2025-T-0038

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Girard Municipal Court

LOUIS ADOVASIO, Trial Court No. 2024 CRB 00994 Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: March 23, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed and vacated in part

Maurus G. Malvasi, Girard City Law Director, 100 West Main Street, Girard, OH 44420 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Bruce M. Broyles, Law Office of Bruce M. Broyles, 752 Luke Chute Road, Waterford, OH 45786 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Louis Adovasio, appeals the judgment of the Girard Municipal

Court, finding him guilty of failing to file a registration statement on vacant property;

permitting grass, brush, and weeds to exceed four inches; and having a broken and/or

dilapidated fence and wall. The court ordered him to pay a total fine of $200. For the

following reasons, we reverse Adovasio’s conviction for failing to file a registration

statement on a vacant building and affirm his property maintenance violations.

{¶2} In August 2024, a complaint was filed by the City of Girard Zoning

Department (the “City”), charging Adovasio with six property violations for his property

located at 2 South Davis Street in Girard, Ohio (“the property”); to wit: Count (1): failure to file a registration statement on vacant property, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation

of Girard Cod.Ord. 1332.05(a); Count (2): permitting grass, brush, and weeds on said

premises to exceed four inches in height, a fourth-degree misdemeanor, in violation of

Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.12(e); Count (3): failing to maintain in good repair all structures and

all exterior parts, a fourth-degree misdemeanor, in violation of Girard Cod.Ord.

1324.10(b)(1)1; Count (4): permitting the exterior to fall in a state of disrepair, a fourth-

degree misdemeanor, in violation of Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.10(a); Count (5): permitting

broken or dilapidated fences, walls, or other structures in commercial yard area to decay

or deteriorate, a fourth-degree misdemeanor, in violation of Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.12(a);

and Count (6): failure to keep sidewalks, curbs or gutters in repair, a minor misdemeanor,

in violation of Girard Cod.Ord. 521.06.

{¶3} On March 20, 2025, a bench trial was held at which the City presented

Zoning Inspector Dan A. Rau as a witness and introduced into evidence 14 photographs

that Insp. Rau took of the property. The defense presented Adovasio as a witness and

introduced into evidence a letter from the Girard Fire Department, informing Adovasio the

building on his property was potentially unsafe and hazardous. The letter referenced

sections of the Ohio Fire Code and included copies of those referenced sections.

{¶4} Insp. Rau testified that he inspected the property on July 16, 2024, after

receiving numerous complaints about boarded-up windows and a dangerous hole. Insp.

Rau stated that after the complaint was filed, Adovasio repaired some of the windows,

removed the temporary fencing, and registered the property as a vacant building. The

building was not registered as a vacant building at the time of Insp. Rau’s inspection.

1. In the complaint and the trial court judgment of conviction and sentence, the incorrect code section is listed for Count 3 and Count 4. Instead of Girard Cod.Ord. 1234.10(B)(1) and 1234.10(A), they should have stated Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.10(b)(1) and 1324.10(a), respectively. PAGE 2 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 {¶5} Insp. Rau explained he charged Adovasio with Counts 3 and 4, failing to

maintain the exterior property, because he observed graffiti on the building, and the

windows and glass door were boarded with wood. He noticed one of the windows was

the wrong size, and wood was placed around it. There was also a large hole,

approximately “football size,” in the plywood of a boarded-up window on the second floor

through which animals could enter. In addition, Adovasio had built a wall on the south

side of the building, and beside it was a large hole filled with gravel. Insp. Rau opined

that the hole should have been fenced in.

{¶6} Insp. Rau further testified he charged Adovasio with Count 5 for broken or

dilapidated fences, because there were construction fences on the corners of the building

that were falling. After the complaint was filed, Adovasio removed the fences but left the

plastic fencing and poles. Rau explained he charged Adovasio with Count 6 for cracks in

the sidewalk.

{¶7} Insp. Rau testified he took the pictures of the property on July 16, 2024

(although we note there is no foliage on the weeds, brush, or trees), and he gave

Adovasio the pictures when he filed the citations. On cross-examination, Insp. Rau

admitted he did not know if the photographs were provided to Adovasio or not. The

photographs were admitted without objection.

{¶8} Adovasio testified he failed to file the registration statement on vacant

property because he did not know he was supposed to file one. After the complaint was

filed, he went to the zoning office to file the registration statement and pay the fee, which

included a late fine, and he was told a notice had been sent. He testified, “They said the

letter was sent out. I do not have anything. I did not know about it until I was told about

it and I went down and registered it.” Adovasio further explained he does not believe his PAGE 3 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 property meets the definition of a vacant building because he goes there regularly, at

least once a week before trash pickup, and cleans around the building. He referenced

the letter he received from the fire department, which included the Ohio Fire Code’s

definition of “abandoned.” He further testified the building is unoccupied, there are no

businesses operating from it, and no illegal activities occur there.

{¶9} Adovasio also testified he does not believe he can be guilty of failing to

maintain the grass (Count (2)) because there is no grass on the property. He explained

there was uncut grass between the buildings that belonged to the adjacent property,

which he also owns. Adovasio further testified he had a snow fence on the back of the

property where he had a grape arbor growing to prevent people from crossing onto the

property, but he had to start removing it in the fall when he found poison ivy growing. In

the following colloquy, Adovasio was asked on cross-examination about two photographs

that depicted the back and corner of the building that shows an overgrowth of bushes and

weeds, and the back yard that shows brush mingled with a portion of a broken orange

temporary fence.

[The City:] Looking at A 10 and 11, that is a closeup of the brush and overgrown grass and weeds?

[Adovasio:] Those are trees.

[The City:] Weeds that became trees, just kidding.

[Adovasio:] I am sure of that brush. When I started cleaning out here, because I discovered the poison ivy I started cleaning out here. As I told Mr. Rau, this was secure but when I started cleaning all this out, no sooner than I cleaned it out I had somebody trying to break in there.

{¶10} Adovasio further testified he put plywood over the glass door, which is still

functionable as a door, to prevent intruders from breaking the glass to access the building.

He also explained he has removed and/or painted over graffiti numerous times. Adovasio PAGE 4 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 expressed his uncertainty over Count 4. He explained Insp. Rau told him to remove the

boards that were over the windows in the front of the store, but that he did not remove

them because someone had tried to break into the building by breaking the glass. He felt

he needed to “secure the premises per the Ohio Revised Code,” which he is familiar with

as a former councilman of 20 years and as a member of the Trumbull County Combined

Health District. He further stated Insp. Rau told him to remove a wooden barrier and the

plastic fence. He placed it there to protect a hole that had not yet been backfilled with

gravel. The wooden barrier stopped a vehicle from crashing into a building and was not

rotting and falling apart as Insp. Rau claimed.

{¶11} On May 14, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry, finding Adovasio

guilty on Count (1), based on Adovasio admitting that he did not timely file the registration

statement; Count (2), based on Insp. Rau’s testimony and the City’s photographs that the

grass exceeded four inches; and Count (5), “permitting broken or dilapidated fences, walls

or other structures,” because the photographs depicted the temporary construction fence

was torn down and strewn about the property; the cement block wall was overgrown with

weeds, trees, and branches; the wall was covered by torn tarp or plastic and some type

of metal sheeting; and there was a large ditch next to the wall that was not properly filled

in.

{¶12} The court found Adovasio not guilty on Count (3) and Count (4,) “violations

of the commercial property maintenance code for failing to maintain in good repair the

exterior sections of the building,” because the City failed to carry its burden of proof. The

court found Insp. Rau’s testimony unclear as to the nature of the violations and the code

sections charged. The court also found Adovasio not guilty on Count (6), “keeping

sidewalks in good repair,” because the City did not submit any evidence on that count. PAGE 5 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 {¶13} The court fined Adovasio $100 on Count (1) and $50 each on Count (2) and

Count (5), for a total fine of $200.

{¶14} Adovasio timely appealed and raises four assignments of error for our

review:

{¶15} “[1.] There was insufficient evidence to establish a violation of City of Girard

Vacant Property Code 1332.05(a).

{¶16} “[2.] The City of Girard Vacant Property Code Chapter 1332 is void for

vagueness as it fails to sufficiently explain when an individual must register a building as

vacant.

{¶17} “[3.] There was insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Girard

Commercial Property Maintenance Code 1324.12(e) – permitting grass brush weeds to

exceed 4 inches.

{¶18} “[4.] There was insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Girard

Commercial Property Maintenance Code 1324.12(a) permitting dilapidated fences, walls,

other structures to decay or deteriorate.”

Registry Violation

{¶19} In his first assignment of error, Adovasio challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence to support his conviction for failing to file a registration statement on a vacant

building, in violation of Girard Cod.Ord. 1332.05(a).

{¶20} Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question

of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). “An appellate court’s function

when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to

examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed,

would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. PAGE 6 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph

two of the syllabus.

{¶21} It is necessary in understanding the violation to provide a brief review of the

“vacant property registry,” established in Girard Cod.Ord. Chapter 1332 et. seq. Pursuant

to Girard Cod.Ord. 1332.01(a), “The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a vacant

property registration program and to regulate the maintenance of properties which are in

the foreclosure process, abandoned, or vacant.” Further, it provides “a means of [1.]

identifying the owner and/or responsible entities of vacant and/or abandoned properties

within the corporate limits of the City of Girard, [2.] having complete contact information

on record for these properties and responsible parties, [and 3.] a registration and

maintenance requirement for vacant and/or abandoned properties.” Girard Cod.Ord.

1332.01(b). This Chapter applies to “all residential, commercial, and industrial structures

located within the City of Girard.” Girard Cod.Ord. 1332.02.

{¶22} Girard Cod.Ord. 1332.03 provides definitions, including “vacant,” which

means a structure that is not lawfully occupied or that otherwise qualifies as “Abandoned” under this Chapter. . . . Commercial structures shall be considered vacant when all commercial activity has ceased at the site or that otherwise qualifies as “Abandoned” under this Chapter. Multi-tenant commercial structures shall be considered vacant when substantially all of the units are not lawfully occupied or engaging in commercial activity, or that otherwise qualifies as “Abandoned” under this Chapter. . . .

(1) In determining whether a structure is vacant, it is also relevant to consider, among other factors, the percentage of the overall square footage of the building or floor not in use to the occupied space; the condition and value of any items in the structure and the presence of rental or for sale signs on the property.

PAGE 7 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 (2) A property that is temporarily unoccupied and is in the process of being renovated under proper and unexpired permits shall not be considered vacant. (3) A property that is listed for sale with a licensed realtor under a fully executed listing agreement shall not be considered vacant for the first six months of the listing agreement under which the property was first listed for sale. Such property shall be considered vacant for purposes of this Section upon the expiration of the first six month period for which it is first listed for sale or upon a subsequent re-listing with the same or a different licensed realtor. Unoccupied property listed as “For Sale by Owner” shall be considered vacant for purpose of this Chapter.

{¶23} Pursuant to Girard Cod.Ord. 1332.04(a), “owner required to act;

enforcement authority,” “[t]he owner of any structure that has become vacant as defined

in Section1332.03(e) shall, within thirty (30) days after the structure first becomes vacant,

within thirty (30) days of receiving notice that a structure is vacant, or within thirty (30)

days after the effective date of this Chapter, whichever is later, file a registration statement

for each such structure with the Code Official or his or her own designee on forms

provided for such purposes.” Thus, an owner is required to file a registration statement

on a vacant building (1) within 30 days of the owner knowing the building is vacant or (2)

within 30 days of receiving a notice that the building is considered vacant.2

{¶24} Adovasio was charged with failing to file a registration statement pursuant

to Girard Cod.Ord. 1332.05(a), which states: “The owner of any vacant structure shall file

a registration statement for each such structure with the Code Official or his or her

designee on forms provided for such purposes. Any such registration statement shall be

deemed prima facie proof of the statements therein contained in any administrative

enforcement proceeding or court proceeding instituted by the City against the owner or

owners of the structure.”

2. The third instance, within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance, is no longer applicable. PAGE 8 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 {¶25} We agree with Adovasio that the evidence the City introduced is insufficient

to convict him of failing to file a registration statement on a vacant building, because the

City never introduced evidence that (1) Adovasio knew his building was vacant or (2)

received notice to register the building as vacant. Insp. Rau testified the building was

unregistered on the date of his inspection, and Adovasio filed the registration statement

and paid the fee and late fine after receiving the complaint. Adovasio testified he never

received a notice to file a registration statement, he did not know his building was

considered “vacant,” and he filed the registration statement when he received notice he

was required to do so via the complaint.

{¶26} Because the City failed to introduce evidence that Adovasio had notice or

knowledge he was required to file a registration statement on a vacant building and did

not do so, the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.

{¶27} Adovasio’s first assignment of error has merit.

{¶28} In his second assignment of error, Adovasio contends the City of Girard

Property Code, Girard Cod.Ord. Chapter 1332, et. seq., is void for vagueness as it applies

to him because he could not determine whether he should register his building as vacant

by reading the ordinances. This assignment of error is rendered moot by our disposition

of his first assignment of error.

Property Maintenance Violations

{¶29} In his third and fourth assignments of errors, Adovasio challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for permitting grass, brush, and

weeds to exceed four inches, in violation of Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.12(e), and permitting

dilapidated fences, walls, and other structures to decay or deteriorate, in violation of

Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.12(a). PAGE 9 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 {¶30} Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.12 applies to the “exterior property areas [of

commercial property]” and provides, “[n]o owner, operator or resident agent of any

premises shall maintain or permit to be maintained at or on the exterior property areas of

such premises any condition which deteriorates or debases the appearance of the

neighborhood, reduces property values in the neighborhood, adversely alters the

appearance and general character of the neighborhood, creates a fire, safety or health

hazard or which is a public nuisance. Such conditions include but are not limited to the

following:

(a) Broken or dilapidated fences, walls or other structures;

...

(e) ‘Lots with structures’ shall maintain grass, brush, briers, burrs, Russian and Canadian thistles at a height not to exceed four inches.

{¶31} As our review of the evidence and testimony at trial reveals, there was more

than sufficient evidence on all the essential elements to find Adovasio guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt of violating Girard Cod.Ord. 1324.12(a) and (e). The City introduced

testimony by Insp. Rau who stated he observed grass and weeds that exceeded four

inches and a temporary construction fence that had fallen down. The pictures the City

introduced as evidence reveal the overgrowth of brush, weeds, and trees around the side

and back of the building and in the back yard, as well as a dilapidated temporary fence

and deteriorated walls/other structure with a broken tarp and brush strewn about it and

metal sheeting. The photographs contradict Adovasio’s claims that the only overgrowth

of grass and weeds is in the adjacent property, and that the temporary fencing was the

only “fence, wall or other structure” at issue.

PAGE 10 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 {¶32} Finding the City carried its burden of production and introduced sufficient

evidence on all the elements of Adovasio’s property maintenance violations, Adovasio’s

third and fourth assignments of error are without merit.

{¶33} The judgment of the Girard Municipal Court is reversed and vacated as to

Adovasio’s conviction for failing to register a statement on a vacant building and affirmed

as to his convictions for property maintenance violations.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

SCOTT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

PAGE 11 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, it is the judgment and order of

this court that the judgment of the Girard Municipal Court is affirmed in part, and reversed

and vacated in part.

Costs to be taxed against the parties equally.

PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 12 OF 12

Case No. 2025-T-0038