Ullmann v. Columbus

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 5223

Syllabus

Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not err as it was not required to make findings of undisputed facts when deciding issues of law. The trial court appropriately analyzed provisions of the city code as was requested by Appellant in her complaint and found that the language of the city code provisions are not overbroad or vague. The trial court also did not err in declining to dismiss the City's environmental enforcement action as it was not at issue in this case and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so. The trial court appropriately interpreted R.C. 713.13 and R.C. 715.30. The trial court also properly found that under Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3 and R.C. Chapter 715 municipal corporate may regulate buildings and other structures for the general health, safety and welfare of the public and also contains due process safeguards by providing notice to property owners. The trial court also did not err in failing to determine the City is committing sanctionable conduct as Appellant's complaint did not request such a determination. The trial court did not err in its reading of Columbus City Code (\C.C.C.\) 4701.99 which allows for both criminal and civil enforcement of the Nuisance Abatement Code and the Ohio Revised Code. The trial court also did not err in failing to find the fines authorized by C.C.C. 4509.99 are excessive and therefore unconstitutional.