Rootstown Twp Bd. of Trustees v. Helmlin

Citation: 2022 Ohio 4045Docket: 2022-P-0010

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; November 13, 2022; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert E. Helmling appealed a judgment from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas that overruled his objections to a magistrate’s decision and denied his motion to recalculate a fine imposed by the Rootstown Township Board of Trustees. The Board had initiated a complaint in 2016, alleging that Helmling was violating zoning regulations by using his residential property for commercial purposes. The court issued a permanent injunction against Helmling, prohibiting the introduction of construction materials and imposing fines for noncompliance.

In 2018, Rootstown sought to reduce the fines to judgment, but it appears they did not pursue this motion. In January 2021, Rootstown again moved to reduce the fines, which resulted in a magistrate's decision awarding $13,450 for noncompliance over 1345 days at $100 per day. This amount was later identified as a mathematical error, as it should have totaled $134,500. Helmling opposed the motion to correct the error and requested a recalculation of the fine, as well as an extension to file objections. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s judgment.

The magistrate and trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment correcting the total fine against Helmling to $134,500. Helmling sought extensions to file objections to the magistrate’s decision, which were granted. He raised multiple arguments in his objections, including the insufficiency of testimony for a continuing violation over 1345 days, the impact of a COVID-19 stay-at-home order on property inspections, potential exemptions for agricultural use under zoning laws, the de minimis nature of the violations, and the unfairness of the fine relative to the circumstances. Helmling later supplemented his objections after the transcript was prepared.

On January 7, 2022, the trial court overruled Helmling’s objections and denied his motion to recalculate the fine. In his first assigned error, Helmling claimed the trial court erred by not considering whether the fine was punitive or unfair, given that the underlying action did not provide authority for civil fines or injunctive relief under R.C. 519.99. The court's review of the magistrate's decision is based on an abuse of discretion standard, while statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo.

Helmling argued the $100 daily fine was improperly imposed, asserting R.C. 519.99 does not authorize such fines in injunction actions and that fines could only be assessed following a contempt proceeding. Although Helmling's initial objections touched on the punitive nature of the fine, he did not specifically argue its unauthorized nature in those objections. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) requires specific objections to be made to preserve issues for appeal, with the plain error doctrine rarely applied. Although he did not frame his argument as plain error, the court found it established plain error concerning the imposition of the fine.

Rootstown acknowledges that R.C. 519.99 does not permit fines in civil cases, as it only applies to criminal offenses with a maximum fine of $500. In the case of Kukral, it was established that a trial court cannot impose fines against property owners in civil actions for injunctive relief; such fines can only be applied in criminal cases. The court also noted that while fines can be imposed for breaching an injunction as an act of contempt, they must occur after the breach and cannot be anticipatory. 

In the current case, the trial court was found to lack the authority to impose a fine under R.C. 519.99 or for anticipatory contempt, rendering the fine a plain error. Although Rootstown argued that the fine was not anticipatory since it would only be enforced if non-compliance was demonstrated, this reasoning effectively constituted anticipatory contempt, as identified in Kukral. 

Helmling's first assigned error is upheld due to the court's misapplication of authority regarding the fine. His second assigned error, concerning the trial court's failure to consider impossibility of compliance during the COVID-19 shutdown, is rendered moot by the resolution of the first error. Rootstown did not raise any argument regarding the res judicata bar related to Helmling's failure to appeal a prior judgment. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.