Johnson v. Clark Cty. Aud.

Citations

• 155 N.E.3d 199
• 2020 Ohio 3201

Syllabus

Landowner appeals from grant of summary judgment to the board of county commissioners, county treasurer, county engineer, and county auditor on his challenges to ditch maintenance assessments for 2016 and 2017. County appellees' motion for summary judgment was timely filed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the landowner's motion for a continuance so he could conduct additional discovery. The trial court erred in considering certain statements in the county engineer's affidavit and the engineer's exhibit, which contradicted statements in his answer to the landowner's complaint. The trial court did not err in failing to consider the unauthenticated exhibits attached to landowner's memorandum in opposition to the summary judgment motion. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on two of the landowner's claims regarding the 2016 assessment genuine issues of material fact existed as to the balance of the ditch maintenance fund (claim one) and county appellees offered no evidence regarding the county's application of maintenance expenses to the ditch maintenance fund (portion of claim four). The trial court properly granted summary judgment on landowner's claims regarding a six-year review (claim two), whether his assessment was excessive (claim three), the engineer's failure to obtain bids for maintenance work (portion of claim four), and landowner's claim for compensatory damages (claim five). County appellees were entitled to summary judgment on all of landowner's claims regarding the 2017 assessment, because landowner failed to establish that he provided a written protest and notice of intention to sue, as required by R.C. 2723.03. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)