Cincinnati v. Rennick

[Cite as Cincinnati v. Rennick, 2022-Ohio-1110.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
CITY OF CINCINNATI, : APPEAL NO. C-210383
TRIAL NO. A-1805774
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. :
STEVEN M. RENNICK, SR., :
and :
PHYLLIS RENNICK, :
Defendants-Appellees. :
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., APPEAL NO. C-210383
STEVE RENNICK, SR. a.k.a. : TRIAL NO. A-1806226
STEVE RENNICK,
:
Relator, O P I N I O N.
:
and
:
STEVE RENNICK, SR., a.k.a.
STEVE RENNICK, et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
vs. :
CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., :
Respondents-Defendants. :
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 1, 2022
Andrew W. Garth, City Solicitor, and Kevin M. Tidd, Senior Assistant City Solicitor,
for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Lindhorst & Dreidame Co., LPA, Matthew C. Curran and Elizabeth M. Johnson, for
Defendants-Appellees.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BERGERON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act grants statutory
immunity against damages incurred in the performance of governmental and
proprietary functions, subject to certain exceptions. The exception at issue before us
involves damages caused by the negligence of the political subdivision’s employees
with respect to proprietary functions. Defendants-appellees Steve and Phyllis Rennick
(the “Rennicks”) contend that plaintiff-appellant the city of Cincinnati (“city”) failed
to adequately maintain a sewer system, a proprietary function which they believe
negates immunity. For its part, the city frames the issue as arising out of the
construction and design of the sewage system, governmental tasks shielded by
sovereign immunity. Because the record here (essentially limited to the complaint) is
not developed enough for us to determine whether the challenged functions fall on the
governmental or proprietary side of the line, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the
city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because the alleged facts plausibly suggest
a proprietary function.
I.
{¶2} The Rennicks operate a commercial garage and office on their Hamilton
County property, a plot of land containing multiple consolidated parcels. Despite its
current zoning designation, the original land purchased by the Rennicks was located
in a commercial community-mixed zoning district. The Rennicks continue operating
their business on the original property footprint as a legal, nonconforming use of the
property, but the subsequent adjoining properties acquired and consolidated by them
are situated in single family residential zoning districts. The city alleged that the
Rennicks’ business operations stretched onto the single-family parcels, in
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
contravention of the residential zoning code, and it filed for injunctive relief
demanding that they cease the operation of nonpermitted uses on the expanded part
of their property.
{¶3} Between 2014 and 2017, a seven-acre tract of land southwest of the
Rennicks’ original property developed into what is now the 21-home Witherby
Meadows subdivision. The parcel of land adjoining the Rennicks’ original property
contained a creek and other land unsuitable for building homes, so the Witherby
Meadows developer conveyed it to the Rennicks. The city dedicated public storm
sewers to collect storm water runoff from the new subdivision, and those storm sewers
empty into the creek on what is now the southernmost part of the Rennicks’ property.
From there, water flows first into an inlet pipe running along the road adjacent to the
Rennicks’ property and then into an unknown terminus underneath the road. After
the city filed for injunctive relief, the Rennicks separately filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus and a complaint seeking damages for the city’s negligent maintenance of
the storm water drainage system on their property. The Rennicks claimed that the city
created a nuisance by negligently maintaining the inlet pipe leading to the public storm
sewer system, thereby increasing the amount of water, mold, and mice invading the
southern part of their property.
{¶4} Additionally, the Rennicks maintain that—to alleviate this incursion—
they purchased pipes at their own cost to contain the drainage system. After the city
allegedly blessed this plan, it later rescinded permission, leaving the Rennicks on the
hook for the piping costs. Seeing things differently, the city parried with a
counterclaim for breach of easement, after which the trial court consolidated the
parties’ complaints. The Rennicks voluntarily dismissed some claims in their
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
amended complaint, and the city moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the
remaining claims of nuisance, interference of surface water, and promissory estoppel.
Without analysis, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶5} The city’s sole assignment of error challenges the denial of its motion
for judgment on the pleadings on immunity grounds, arguing that R.C. Chapter 2744
provides immunity for what it depicts as a drainage system design capacity issue.
“Dismissal is appropriate under Civ.R. 12(C) when a court construes as true the
material allegations in the complaint, along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn
therefrom, and finds, beyond doubt, that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that
would entitle him to relief.” New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Buehrer
Group Architecture & Eng., Inc., 157 Ohio St.3d 164, 2019-Ohio-2851, 133 N.E.3d 482,
¶ 8. A trial court may grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of
immunity only where the pleadings, construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff,
conclusively establish the affirmative defense. Steele v. Cincinnati, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-180593, 2019-Ohio-4853, ¶ 15. “Appellate review of a judgment on the
pleadings involves only questions of law and is therefore de novo.” New Riegel at ¶ 8.
{¶6} Because it does not constitute a final order, the denial of the city’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the breach of easement claim is not
before us; we have appellate jurisdiction only as it pertains to the denial of immunity
for the Rennicks’ nuisance, interference of surface water, and promissory estoppel
claims. See R.C. 2744.02(C) (“An order that denies a political subdivision or an
employee of a political subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability as
provided in this chapter or any other provision of the law is a final order.”). We
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
accordingly confine our review to the propriety of immunity on the extant pleadings,
and express no opinion on other aspects of the parties’ disputes.
II.
{¶7} The Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, codified in R.C. Chapter
2744, sets forth a three-tiered analysis to determine whether a political subdivision,
such as the city, enjoys immunity from civil liability. Georgantonis v. City of Reading,
2020-Ohio-3961, 156 N.E.3d 1037, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.). We start from the premise that “a
political subdivision is generally immune from liability incurred in performing either
a governmental or proprietary function.” Stykes v. Colerain Twp., 2019-Ohio-3937,
145 N.E.3d 1123, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.), citing Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d
1, 2008-Ohio-2792, 891 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 18. We then consider if one of the five exceptions
to the general rule of immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) exposes the political
subdivision to tort liability. Id. If an exception does apply, we then turn to whether
the political subdivision can establish immunity through another statutory defense (a
point no party argues on the present record). Id.{¶8} We begin with the Rennicks’ claims for nuisance and interference of
surface water. The question before us at this stage is whether the alleged harm
suffered by the Rennicks results from the city performing a governmental or a
proprietary function. Governmental functions are those activities imposed upon the
state as an obligation of sovereignty, performed for the common good of all citizens in
the state, or achieved to promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. See R.C.
2744.01(C)(1). Relevant to this case, “R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(l) identifies as a
governmental function ‘the provision or nonprovision, planning or design,
construction, or reconstruction of a public improvement, including but not limited to,
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
a sewer system,’ making these responsibilities immune from political-subdivision
liability.” Coleman v. Portage Cty. Engineer, 133 Ohio St.3d 28, 2012-Ohio-3881, 975
N.E.2d 952, ¶ 12. Design flaws in a sewer system implicate governmental functions
and are accorded immunity. Bernard v. City of Cincinnati, 2019-Ohio-1517, 135
N.E.3d 485, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.) (“[A] design flaw * * * squarely falls in the ‘governmental’
bucket. Issues of design of a sewer system are accorded governmental immunity.”).
The city urges us to adopt this governmental function categorization because, in its
view, “remedying the problem would require [the city] to, in essence, redesign or
reconstruct the sewer system.” See Coleman at ¶ 30.
{¶9} By contrast, “political subdivisions are liable for injury, death, or loss to
person or property caused by the negligent performance of acts by their employees
with respect to proprietary functions of the political subdivisions.” R.C.
2744.02(B)(2). The Rennicks encourage us to view the activity as one of the exceptions
to immunity found in R.C. 2744.01(G)(2)(d), which “identifies ‘the maintenance,
destruction, operation, and upkeep of a sewer system’ as a proprietary function for
which civil liability may attach.” Coleman at ¶ 12. Proprietary functions involve
“activities that are customarily engaged in by nongovernmental persons.” R.C.
2744.01(G)(1)(b). Because it is possible for proprietary functions to include
governmental activities, we must evaluate “ ‘what it is that the political subdivision is
actually doing when performing the function.’ ” Kenko Corp. v. City of Cincinnati, 183
Ohio App.3d 583, 2009-Ohio-4189, 917 N.E.2d 888, ¶ 27 (1st Dist.), quoting Allied
Erecting Dismantling Co. v. City of Youngstown, 151 Ohio App.3d 16, 2002-Ohio-
5179, 783 N.E.2d 523, ¶ 41 (7th Dist.). “[T]he specific act or omission at issue must be
considered, not just the general nature of the function.” Steele, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
C-180593, 2019-Ohio-4853, at ¶ 20. If the Rennicks can establish that their property
loss traces to the city’s negligent maintenance of the sewer system, then the city’s
performance of that proprietary function would defeat its general grant of immunity
(unless an exception applied under R.C. 2744.03). The problem is, on this record and
construing the pleadings in the Rennicks’ favor, we just can’t say with any certainty
that the harm alleged is governmental or proprietary, but the allegations in the
complaint sufficiently point enough in the latter direction to avoid dismissal at this
stage.
{¶10} The Rennicks maintain that their claims of nuisance and surface water
interference arise from the city’s failure to maintain the area around the inlet pipe and
the inlet pipe itself, along with the drainage system. As described by the Rennicks,
prior to the installation of the Witherby Meadows storm sewers, they experienced no
problems with the volume of water flowing to the creek and inlet pipe. Afterwards, the
volume increased significantly, eroding the area around the creek. The city zeros in
on those specific lines in the Rennicks’ complaint to conclude that the stress of linking
the Witherby Meadows drainage infrastructure constitutes a design capacity issue that
can only be remedied by a reconstruction or new construction of the drainage system.
But that conclusion disregards other aspects of the complaint, including a section
titled “Failure to Maintain Inlet Pipe,” and the city fails to reconcile its arguments with
the allegations that point in the other direction. After all, the Rennicks also allege that
the city “failed to adequately maintain and operate the inlet pipe,” and that it “created
a nuisance by not properly maintaining property surrounding the creek and the inlet
pipe.”
8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶11} We recognize that the Rennicks’ complaint uses the words install,
maintain, and operate somewhat interchangeably, rendering it difficult to discern
whether the remedy required to solve the problem falls under a governmental or
proprietary function. See Coleman, 133 Ohio St.3d 28, 2012-Ohio-3881, 975 N.E.2d
952, at ¶ 30. As we read the complaint, it seems possible that some aspects of the
Rennicks’ claims will implicate proprietary functions and others governmental, or
maybe they all fall in one bucket or the other. The parties can revisit such matters on
summary judgment if a more complete record answers these questions. See Bernard,
2019-Ohio-1517, 135 N.E.3d 485, at ¶ 32 (“A comprehensive and integrated review of
the record demonstrates that the issues emphasized by the [plaintiffs] fall short of
raising genuine issues of material fact.”). But, on this record, the face of the complaint
does not reveal how we should characterize the Rennicks’ claims, meaning the city
failed to conclusively establish its immunity defense. We accordingly find it proper for
the trial court to have denied the city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
{¶12} For similar reasons, the trial court correctly denied the city’s motion as
to the Rennicks’ promissory estoppel claim. “ ‘[T]he doctrines of equitable estoppel
and promissory estoppel are inapplicable against a political subdivision when the
political subdivision is engaged in a governmental function.’ ” United States Bank
Natl. Assn. v. City of Cincinnati, 2019-Ohio-1866, 136 N.E.3d 794, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.),
quoting Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110 Ohio St.3d 194, 2006-Ohio-4251, 852 N.E.2d
716, ¶ 16. Thus, “[t]he city can be estopped only with respect to acts done in the
exercise of a proprietary function.” Id. at ¶ 19. The Rennicks insist that this claim
presents a proprietary function (the city’s failure to maintain the inlet pipe) and their
complaint explains that they sought permission from the city to install pipes in the
9
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ground on the overflow area to contain the drainage ditch, place fill over the pipes, and
create usable land. The city counters that the alleged damages arise from the
governmental function of approving plans or permits for the Rennicks’ proposed
construction of a storm water structure. See R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(p).
{¶13} But here again, the complaint does not conclusively answer this
question. We see no indication on this record that the Rennicks ever applied for or
were denied a permit, or that they endeavored to construct the type of building or
structure contemplated by R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(p). At this stage, the Rennicks need
only plead a plausible set of facts entitling them to relief, and they have done so. The
record here is not developed enough, on any of the Rennicks’ claims, to establish that
the functions being performed are definitively governmental or otherwise entitled to
immunity.
* * *
{¶14} In light of the foregoing analysis, we overrule the city’s assignment of
error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
WINKLER and BOCK, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
10