A Tenth District Court of Appeals panel in a recent decision vacated a portion of a judgement against a limited-liability company that owns a duplex in the North Campus neighborhood of Columbus.

The appellate panel ruled that the Franklin County Municipal Court, Environmental Division judge’s imposition of a permanent injunction against 71-73 E. Norwich Avenue LLC relative to a public-nuisance declaration exceeded the scope of state law and the related city nuisance-abatement ordinance.

“We find no statutory or regulatory authority supporting the permanent injunction prohibiting appellants ‘and any successors and heirs … from maintaining a public nuisance at the subject property or any other property in Franklin County’ after the specific nuisance violations alleged in the city’s complaint were abated,” Tenth District Judge Carly Edelstein wrote for the 3-0 panel. “Since the specific nuisance violations alleged in this case were abated by Norwich in February 2024, the injunction imposed … is no longer valid.”

According to case summary, the city of Columbus filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the company in the municipal court on Nov. 28, 2022.

The city alleged various violations of the city code that it argued constituted a public nuisance. The city also requested an order requiring the company and any successors in interest or title to bring the premises into compliance with the city code and state law.

The city also sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from the company and any successors from further violating any applicable provisions of the city code and state law, the summary provided.

At the Jan. 8, 2024, hearing, the city presented evidence and testimony from a code enforcement officer about specific violations he observed while inspecting the premises April 29, 2022.

The officer testified that he sent to the property owner a copy of the order, which stated that the violations needed correcting within 30 days of service, unless an extension was granted.

The company’s agent admitted to receiving the order and testified that he sent an appeal letter, dated May 10, 2022, to code enforcement in response.

During subsequent inspections Oct. 13, 2022, and the morning of the Jan. 8, 2024, hearing, the code enforcement officer found the nuisance violations had not been abated, summary continued.

The trial court found the premises was out of compliance with numerous provisions of city code and declared it a public nuisance and ordered the company to bring it into compliance with the local ordinance by or before Feb. 8, 2024.

It is undisputed that appellants complied with that order, the panel noted in its decision.

“Appellants argue that, under a plain reading of R.C. 715.30, the use of (the words) ‘such violation’ in the last sentence of the statute only authorizes an action to prevent the code violations identified in the complaint — not any and all future violations of city ordinances or regulations as the trial court ordered in its Jan. 8, 2024, judgment entry,” Edelstein reasoned. “The city contends that Ohio law ‘does not require an injunction be specific to a singularly identifiable existing violation,’ and cites to three cases from other Ohio appellate district courts involving
zoning-ordinance violations — not building code violations — in support of that proposition.”

The panel noted that the appellate court previously had held that R.C. 715.30 allows municipal corporations to seek injunctions for maintenance issues, if those maintenance issues violate a municipal ordinance or imminently threaten to violate an ordinance.

“The plain language of the statute confirms this interpretation,” Edelstein continued. “It is axiomatic that a court’s duty is to give effect to the words used in a statute, not to delete or insert words.”

The panel remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Presiding Judge Terri Jamison and Tenth District Judge Laurel Beatty Blunt concurred with Edelstein’s opinion.