DocketNumber: No. 9294
Citation Numbers: 499 N.E.2d 325, 27 Ohio App. 3d 56
Judges: WOLFF, J.
Filed Date: 7/30/1985
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
The Penn Central Corporation ("Penn Central") appeals from the judgment of the common pleas court awarding it compensation for land appropriated for Interstate 675 by the Director of Transportation of the state of Ohio.
Penn Central advances three assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. 1
"The trial court lacks jurisdiction and erred in proceedings to try on the merits the issues of plaintiff's Petition for Appropriation when plaintiff-appellee had not complied with the provisions of Revised Code
Assignment of Error No. 2
"The trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff-appellee, Director of Transportation, had an option to ignore the provisions of Revised Code
Assignment of Error No. 3
"The trial court erred in holding that only substantial compliance with the statutes governing proceedings for appropriation was required of plaintiff-appellee rather than strict compliance with said statutes."
These assignments of error accurately reflect the facts in the record. The record further reflects that the director strictly complied with R.C.
The issue presented is whether the Director of Transportation must strictly comply with R.C.
R.C.
"If the director of transportation is unable to purchase property for any purpose related to highways, roads, or bridges authorized by Chapters 5501., 5503., 5511., 5513., 5515., 5516., 5517., 5519., 5521., 5523., 5525., 5527., 5528., 5529., 5531., 5533., and 5535. of the Revised Code, he shall first enter on the journal of the department of transportation a finding that it is necessary, for the public convenience and welfare, to appropriate such property as he deems needed for such purposes. Such finding shall contain a definite, accurate, and detailed description of the property, and the name and place of residence, if known or with reasonable diligence ascertainable, of the owner of the property appropriated.
"The director shall, in such finding, fix what he deems the value of such property appropriated, together with damages to the residue, and deposit the value thereof, together with such damages, with the probate court or the court of common pleas of the county within which such property, or a part thereof, is situated. The power to appropriate property for any purposeauthorized by such chapters shall be exercised in the mannerprovided in sections *Page 58
R.C.
"All appropriations of real property, except as otherwise authorized by this section, shall be made pursuant to sections
We conclude from R.C.
R.C. Chapter 163, Ohio's enactment of the Uniform Eminent Domain Act, was enacted in 1966, well after the enactment of R.C. Chapter 5519. Since 1966, several sections of R.C. Chapter 5519 have been repealed. However, R.C.
While we are not certain why R.C.
Penn Central does not contend that the director has not complied with R.C. Chapter 163, and from our examination of the record there appears to have been strict compliance with R.C. Chapter 163.
Because we conclude that the director was not required to comply with R.C.
The judgment of the common pleas court will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BROGAN, P.J., and KERNS, J., concur. *Page 59