Background
Mark and Matthew Standen owned a 2.67-acre vacant parcel at the intersection of State Route 83 and Chestnut Ridge Road in North Ridgeville. In 2023, the city used Ohio’s quick-take procedure to acquire part of the parcel for a roundabout and commenced an appropriation action. The project plans depicted a six-inch curb along the remaining property, or residue, without a curb cut to either road.
At the appropriation trial, both appraisers valued the entire property before the taking at $700,800 and the portion taken at $236,400. The city’s appraiser found no damage to the residue, while the Standens’ appraiser calculated $309,600 in residue damages on the assumption that access from Chestnut Ridge Road would remain. Mark Standen testified that the residue would be worthless without roadway access, while the city engineer testified that the owners could seek a curb cut or driveway permit.
After being instructed to consider interference with access when valuing damage to the residue, the jury awarded $236,400 for the land taken and $464,400 for residue damages, totaling $700,800. The verdict necessarily valued the residue at zero after the taking. The Standens nevertheless brought an original mandamus action seeking to compel the city to initiate a second appropriation proceeding for an alleged total taking of the residue.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ. Although loss or substantial impairment of access to an abutting public roadway is a compensable property interest, the Standens had already exhausted an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In a partial-taking proceeding, the jury must determine both compensation for the land taken and any damage to the residue, including damage caused by loss of ingress and egress.
The access issue was therefore within the scope of the first appropriation trial, and the jury awarded the full pre-appropriation value found by both appraisers. If the Standens believed that award inadequately compensated them for lost access, they could have cross-appealed after the city appealed the judgment. Because the adequate-remedy requirement defeated mandamus, the court did not decide whether res judicata also barred a second proceeding. It separately denied the Standens’ motion to submit rebuttal evidence because counsel’s proxy-signed affidavit did not comply with Ohio’s statutory requirements.
Key Takeaways
- Loss or substantial impairment of roadway access can constitute a compensable taking of a property interest.
- A partial-taking trial must address both the value of the property acquired and damage to the residue, including diminished value caused by impaired ingress and egress.
- Property owners generally cannot obtain a second appropriation trial through mandamus when the claimed residue damage was within the first proceeding and appellate review was available.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that owners facing a partial taking must fully litigate all foreseeable residue damages—including impaired access—in the original appropriation action and pursue any available appeal if they consider the award inadequate. A compensable property interest does not itself establish entitlement to mandamus when an adequate ordinary remedy has already been used or was available.