Tillman v. Piqua Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 2023 Ohio 3385 ( 2023 )

[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.