Springfield v. Gross (Oct. 14, 2005), Clark Cty. App. No. 2004-CA-81, 2005-Ohio-5527, a recent decision from the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District, is an important reminder of the importance of carefully drafting appropriation ordinances when taking property through eminent domain. In Gross, the City of Springfield, Ohio passed an ordinance to take private property for a sewer lift station. The City of Springfield then filed an action to take the property using its powers of eminent domain. The property owners (Donald and Carol Gross) filed a motion to dismiss the City's complaint on the basis that a portion of the property that the City sought to take was slated to be used as a construction and equipment storage area, and not for a sewer lift station. Consequently, the property owners contended that a portion of the property the City sought to take was not for a proper public purpose as set forth by the City's ordinance. The trial court agreed with the property owners and dismissed the City's appropriation action.
The Second Appellate court affirmed the trial court decision, and found that only a portion of the property was being taken for the stated purpose (sewer lift station), as the remainder was going to be used to store construction equipment. The Second Appellate court specifically held that: “Because the ordinance passed by the City Commission stated that the purpose of the appropriation was to install a replacement sewer lift station, we conclude that the City has failed to define specifically in its legislation the purpose of the excess appropriation in accordance with City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439 and City of East Cleveland v. Nau (1931), 124 Ohio St. 433.” Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the action. Affirmed."