Background
Jefferson Township and several landowners petitioned for improvements to Cole Ditch, which runs through Licking and Franklin Counties. The proposed work was intended to alleviate stormwater flooding and was estimated to cost approximately $3.2 million, with costs assessed against landowners in the watershed. A joint board of commissioners from both counties found after the first statutory hearing that the project was necessary, conducive to the public welfare, and likely to produce benefits exceeding its costs. The board ordered the Franklin County Engineer to prepare the reports, plans, and schedules required for the project.
Colt’s Neck Homeowners Association opposed the project and alleged, among other things, that some affected members had not received proper notice. It filed substantially identical appeals in the Licking and Franklin County Courts of Common Pleas, with the Licking County filing occurring about two hours earlier. Both courts dismissed the appeals. The Fifth District affirmed the Licking County dismissal, while the Tenth District reversed the Franklin County dismissal and directed the trial court to convene a joint panel of judges from both counties.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Tenth District. It held that R.C. 6131.25(A), together with R.C. 6133.03(D), permits an affected landowner to appeal any order of a joint board of county commissioners, including an order issued after the first hearing that directs the county engineer to proceed with project planning. The association qualified as an affected landowner because it alleged violations of its procedural rights and because continued opposition after the order required additional time and resources.
The court also held that R.C. 6133.10(A) required the appeal to be heard by a panel consisting of one common-pleas judge from each affected county because the appeal did not involve a claim for compensation or damages within the statutory exception. Although the association had first filed in Licking County, the jurisdictional-priority rule did not deprive the Franklin County courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. Any violation of that common-law rule would make the later judgments voidable rather than void, and the parties forfeited the issue by failing to raise it below. The court remanded the case to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to convene a two-judge panel from Franklin and Licking Counties.
Key Takeaways
- An affected landowner may appeal a joint county board’s first-hearing order directing further work on a proposed ditch improvement; appellate review is not limited to petition dismissals or final project orders.
- An appeal that does not involve statutory claims for compensation or damages must be heard by a panel containing one common-pleas judge from each county affected by the improvement.
- The jurisdictional-priority rule governs a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, not its subject-matter jurisdiction, so an error under the rule produces a voidable judgment and may be waived or forfeited.
Why It Matters
The decision allows affected landowners to obtain judicial review before a proposed joint-county drainage project reaches its final stages, particularly when they allege that their notice or hearing rights were violated. It also clarifies that opposing landowners can be “affected” even before assessments are imposed.
The ruling further supplies a filing rule absent from the statutes: until the General Assembly provides otherwise, an affected landowner may file this type of appeal in any county where the proposed improvement will occur. Once filed, a non-compensation appeal must proceed before the statutorily required multicounty judicial panel.