Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crosby v. Pickaway County General

December 20, 2006

BRADLEY W. CROSBY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PICKAWAY COUNTY GENERAL, HEALTH DISTRICT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Algenon L. Marbley

OPINION AND ORDER

Magistrate Judge Kemp

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment. Plaintiffs move this Court, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to reconsider its May 12, 2006 Order in which it granted summary judgment to Defendant Pickaway County General Health District ("Defendant Health District").*fn1 For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND*fn2

A. Facts

Plaintiffs Bradley Crosby, Rose Crosby, Monty Cummings, Cathy Cummings, and Jeremiah Rayburn (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), own two adjoining plots of real property in Pickaway County. Plaintiffs purchased the land with the intent of building a single-family house on each respective lot and selling the houses for profit.

In March 2003, Four Star Development Company, which owned Lot 4 and Lot 5 immediately prior to Plaintiffs and is not a party to this litigation, filed a "Sewage System Applicant/Permit" application with Defendant Health District, requesting approval to install a sewage system on the lots. Defendant Health District evaluated this application, and it listed its additional requirements for the proposed sewage systems, including the sizes of the septic tanks and leach beds for the respective lots. Plaintiffs allege that, in reliance upon Defendant Health District's evaluation, they began building single-family houses on the purchased property.

After Plaintiffs completed construction of the houses, but prior to installing the septic tanks and leach beds, Defendant Health District mailed Plaintiffs a letter suspending its approval of the sewage system permits. In the letter dated March 19, 2004, Defendant Health District took the position that the installation of a sewage system on Lots 4 and 5, without the implementation of a functional drainage plan to drain ponded surface water, would constitute a nuisance and, as such, it would not approve installation of a sewage system.

In response to Defendant Health District's letter, Plaintiffs submitted a suggested drainage plan, but Defendant Health District, after reviewing that plan, determined that it was not adequate to alleviate their concerns. Plaintiffs never submitted another proposed drainage plan after this initial rejection.

On September 28, 2004, Plaintiff Monty Cummings appeared at a meeting before Defendant Health District, seeking permission to install a septic system on Lot 4. After Plaintiff Cummings' appearance at the meeting, Defendant Health District issued a formal resolution, denying his request to install the septic system and occupy the home on Lot 4. To date, the single-family houses on Lots 4 and 5 remain vacant and Defendant Health District has not approved the permits for installation of septic tanks and leach beds on those respective properties.

B. Procedural History

On October 7, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the "Complaint") against the following Defendants: Defendant Health District, Pickaway County, Robert Huffer, John Stevenson, and Ula Jean Metzler (Defendants Huffer, Stevenson, and Metzler are referred to collectively as "Defendant Commissioners") (Defendants Pickaway County and Commissioners are referred to collectively as "Defendant County"). The Complaint sought monetary damages for the interest Plaintiffs paid on construction loans, lost profits on the failure to resell their houses, lost profits in not being able to construct and sell other houses until the resolution of this matter, utility and maintenance expenses on the houses, real property taxes, and reasonable attorney's fees.

Plaintiffs first alleged in their Complaint that Defendants deprived them of their property rights without affording them substantive and procedural due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs' also claimed that Defendants deprived them of their property without just ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.