Tillman v. Piqua Bd. of Zoning Appeals

2023 Ohio 3385

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 22, 2023
• Docket: 2023-CA-3
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Tillman v. Piqua Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2023-Ohio-3385.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MIAMI COUNTY

JASON TILLMAN, ET AL. : : Appellants : C.A. No. 2023-CA-3 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 22 CV 456 : CITY OF PIQUA BD. OF ZONING : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas APPEALS : Court) : Appellee :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on September 22, 2023

JASON TILLMAN and BRIDGETT TILLMAN, Appellants, Pro Se

FRANK J. PATRIZIO and KYLER J. PALMER, Attorneys for Appellee

.............

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellants Jason and Bridgett Tillman appeal from a judgment of the Miami

County Common Pleas Court, which dismissed their administrative appeal from a

decision of the Piqua Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”). The BZA had approved a

decision of the City of Piqua to demolish the Tillmans’ home. Because the underlying

legal controversy has been rendered moot, this appeal is dismissed. -2-

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Jason and Bridgett Tillman owned a house located at 638 South Roosevelt

Avenue in Piqua. In May 2021, the house was rendered uninhabitable after it sustained

severe damage from a fire. On June 1, 2021, the City of Piqua (“the City”) entered an

order of condemnation regarding the residence.

{¶ 3} In April 2022, the City entered an order of demolition for the residence upon

finding that the Tillmans had made no substantive repairs to the damage caused by the

fire. The City requested that the BZA review its decision. The BZA conducted a hearing

on the matter on October 25, 2022. Thereafter, the BZA entered a decision upholding

the demolition order.

{¶ 4} The Tillmans filed an administrative appeal in the Miami County Court of

Common Pleas contesting the decision of the BZA. On January 11, 2023, the BZA filed

a motion to dismiss the appeal; the BZA argued that the Tillmans had failed to prosecute

their appeal because they had not filed a transcript of the BZA proceedings as required

by R.C. 2506.02. Citing Grant v. Washington Twp., 1 Ohio App.2d 84, 203 N.E.2d 859

(2d Dist.1962), the BZA argued that the failure to file the transcript rendered the common

pleas court without jurisdiction to proceed.

{¶ 5} On January 13, 2023, the Tillmans filed a document entitled “Motion for

Transcript from Piqua Ohio BZA Board of Zoning and Request Extention [sic] of Code

2506.02.” In the motion, the Tillmans sought to have the common pleas court request

the transcripts of the BZA record and hearing; they also claimed they had requested the -3-

transcripts “multiple times by email.” An attachment to the motion indicated that the

Tillmans had first contacted the BZA regarding “a public records request” on January 12,

2023.

{¶ 6} The common pleas court dismissed the administrative appeal on February 7,

2023. The Tillmans filed a timely notice of appeal to this court on February 10, 2023, but

they did not seek a stay of the judgment with either the common pleas court or this court.

The City executed its order, and the home was demolished on February 22, 2023.

Thereafter, the BZA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The Tillmans filed a

memorandum in opposition. The matter is now before us for review.

II. Mootness

{¶ 7} At the outset, we must address the BZA’s claim that this appeal has been

rendered moot because the subject property has been demolished.

{¶ 8} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue

judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio App.3d 484, 2018-

Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d

371 (1970). Accordingly, the “mootness doctrine” prevents courts from deciding “cases

in which there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties.” Id., citing

In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37. An issue

becomes moot when an appellate court is left with nothing to decide because an event

has occurred which makes it impossible for the court to “grant any effectual relief.” Ardire

v. Westlake City Council, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99347, 2013-Ohio-3533, ¶ 3, citing -4-

Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), syllabus; accord State ex rel. City of

Englewood Dir. of Law v. Red Carpet Inn, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27590, 2018-Ohio-

1224.

{¶ 9} An appeal or action challenging the demolition of a building is rendered moot

when a stay is not obtained and the building is demolished during the pendency of the

proceeding. Red Carpet Inn at ¶ 7; accord Mayfield v. Costanzo & Son Co., 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 96890, 2012-Ohio-271, ¶ 14, citing Armour v. Luckey, 9th Dist. Summit

No. 10220, 1981 WL 4125, *2 (Aug. 27, 1981) (denial of stay and demolition of building

rendered moot an argument on appeal challenging the demolition of the building).

{¶ 10} The Tillmans do not claim that any of the exceptions to the mootness

doctrine apply to the facts of this case. Specifically, they do not argue that their appeal

raises issues that (1) are capable of repetition, yet evading review, (2) involve matters of

great public importance, or (3) constitute unresolved debatable constitutional questions.

Coates Run Property LL, L.L.C. v. Athens Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 4th Dist. Athens No.

15CA5, 2015-Ohio-4732, ¶ 15. Further, on this record, we cannot discern any such

exception.

{¶ 11} We conclude that the Tillmans’ failure to seek a stay of the demolition order

and the subsequent demolition of the residence, along with the absence of any exception

to the mootness doctrine, deprives us of a legal controversy upon which we can grant

relief.

III. Conclusion -5-

{¶ 12} Our finding of mootness obviates the need to evaluate the Tillmans’

assignment of error. Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 398,

2004-Ohio-5466, 816 N.E.2d 238, ¶ 15; Townsend v. Antioch Univ., 2d Dist. Greene No.

2008-CA-103, 2009-Ohio-2552, ¶ 8.

{¶ 13} This appeal is dismissed as moot.

EPLEY, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.