Overview
Case summary
Ellen B. Baker owned real estate in Norwood, Ohio. The Village of Norwood condemned a strip through her property to extend a public street, with the probate court awarding her $2,000 for the taken property. The village then assessed back the $2,000 plus $218.58 in costs onto Baker's adjacent property, creating a lien. Baker sued in equity to enjoin the assessment, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as a taking without compensation. The Circuit Court held that condemning property for public use and assessing back the compensation and costs onto the same owner constitutes a taking without due process, granting a perpetual injunction against the defendants.
Abstract
Property owner had a strip of land condemned for public street extension, receiving compensation awarded by probate court. The condemning authority then assessed the compensation amount plus costs back onto the owner's adjacent property, creating a lien. The court held this constituted a taking without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and granted a perpetual injunction against the assessment.
Opinion of the court
opinionSAG1E, District Judge
- Assessment back of condemnation award and costs onto same owner's property is a taking without compensation
- Violates Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
- Follows precedent from Scott v. City of Toledo
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Complaint alleges violation of constitutional rights under U.S. and Ohio constitutions
Procedural posture
- Constitutional challenge to assessment as taking without due process
Subsequent history
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Assessment violates due process as it takes property without compensation
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Municipality's assessment of condemnation award and costs back onto property owner — constitutional · error foundNot applicable as error is structural · not harmless
Statutory interpretation
2Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Constitutional challenge to assessment — de novo Legal question of whether assessment violates Fourteenth Amendment
Timeline
Baker filed suit in equity seeking injunction against the assessment
Initiated the case challenging the assessment
Circuit court granted perpetual injunction against defendants, holding assessment violated Fourteenth Amendment
Outcome: Injunction granted with costs
Final disposition of the case
Baker Street dedicated to public use prior to village incorporation
Established existing street that village sought to extend
Village of Norwood incorporated
Municipality gained authority to exercise eminent domain
Village exercised eminent domain in probate court to condemn strip through Baker's property for street extension
Outcome: Strip valued at $2,000, awarded to Baker
Initial condemnation proceeding that led to the challenged assessment
Village assessed back $2,000 plus $218.58 in costs onto Baker's adjacent property, certified to county auditor and treasurer
Outcome: Assessment created lien on Baker's property
Action challenged as unconstitutional taking
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
5 facts- Complainant Ellen B. Baker owns real estate at corner of Williams Avenue and Baker Street (later Ivanhoe Avenue) in Norwood
- Village of Norwood condemned a 300-foot by 50-foot strip through Baker's property to extend Baker Street as a public street
- Probate court valued the condemned strip at $2,000, awarded to Baker
- Village then assessed back upon Baker's adjacent property the $2,000 plus $218.58 in costs, fees, and expenses, totaling $2,218.58
- Assessment was payable in 10 annual installments with interest and certified to county auditor and treasurer as a lien on Baker's property
Disputed questions
- Whether the assessment constitutes a taking without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
Procedural history
4 steps- Village incorporated and exercised eminent domain under Ohio statute in probate court
- Condemnation proceedings resulted in $2,000 award to Baker
- Village assessed back the award plus costs onto Baker's property
- Baker filed suit in equity seeking injunction against the assessment
Evidence in the record
- Expert witnesses in condemnation proceedings
- Revised Statutes of Ohio
- Tax duplicate of Hamilton County
- Evidence type: Assessment of $2,218.58 · Challenge basis: Due process under Fourteenth Amendment · Trial court ruling: excluded · Reasoning: Constitutes taking without compensation · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Objects of relevance
Policy considerations
- Protection of private property rights against municipal overreach
- Fairness in eminent domain proceedings
Authorities
Cited authorities (4)
Related cases (4)
Statutes
- Revised Statutes of Ohio (eminent domain and assessment provisions)
- Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution
Standards & doctrines
- Due process doctrine under Fourteenth Amendment
- Eminent domain compensation requirements
Legal principles applied
- Property cannot be taken for public use without compensation
- Assessment back of award and costs is equivalent to taking without compensation
Notable quotes
“If such a proceeding is not a taking for public use without compensation, I am at a loss to know what would constitute such a taking.”SAG1E, District Judge — Discussing the assessment back of condemnation award and costsEmphasizes the court's view that the assessment is clearly unconstitutional
“If a state, by its laws, authorized private property to be taken for public use, without compensation, I think it would be depriving a man of his property without due process of law.”Mr. Justice Bradley (quoted) — Quoting Justice Bradley in Davidson v. New OrleansSupports the holding that the assessment violates due process