City of Columbus vs. John E. and Carol A. Rees

Defendants Answer and Counterclaim

Note: To read the background and story of this Franklin County Environmental Court action, click here.

Note: The first nine paragraphs respond to the legalese in the complaint so it might be easier to read if you start at #10.

John E. Rees
November 3, 1999



IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO

Plaintiff

vs.

JOHN E. REES and CAROL ANN REES

Defendants

Case No. 1999 EVH - 075795

RICHARD C. PFEIFFER, JR, JUDGE

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

Defense

  1. Defendants are without knowledge of allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7.


  2. While defendants admit paragraph 4, it is misleading in that it is incomplete. In addition to the residential dwelling unit there is a two bay concrete block commercial garage building on the lot.


  3. Defendants admit allegations in paragraphs 5 up to the last comma. Defendants deny being "... personally liable in the cause of action."


  4. In paragraph 8 defendants deny that "...Code Enforcement Officer Hiram Howard ... observed the defendants operating an auto repair shop." Defendants deny violation of Columbus City Code (hereafter CCC) 3305.01. Defendants admit the rest of the paragraph.


  5. In paragraph 9 defendants deny any knowledge of Zoning Order Z9802163 being issued to them. Defendants admit the rest of the paragraph.


  6. Defendants deny knowledge of allegations in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.


  7. In paragraph 16, defendants admit receiving the letter marked "exhibit D" in the complaint. Defendants are without knowledge of the remainder of paragraph 16.


  8. Defendants admit allegations in paragraph 17.


  9. Defendants deny allegations in paragraph 18, 20, 22, 23.


  10. The property is zoned C-4.


  11. Garage repair shops are a permitted use in C-4 districts.


  12. In June of 1964 the defendants were issued a commercial building permit to add to the existing garage for the purpose of operating a code defined garage repair shop.


  13. On July 20, 1964, the defendants opened an automobile repair shop at that location.


  14. When the Automobile Repair Shop was established in July 1964 it was in full compliance with all existing Columbus City Codes, including the zoning code.


  15. On February 1, 1968, the defendants were issued a second commercial building permit to add a second addition to the existing garage repair shop.


  16. When the Automobile Repair Shop second addition was completed in 1968 the property remained in full compliance with all existing Columbus City Codes, including the zoning code.


  17. In March of 1983 the defendants ceased operation of the garage repair shop.


  18. The garage was leased out by the defendants in April of 1983 as a commercial garage repair shop and has remained in continuous use as a garage repair shop to this day.


  19. The City of Columbus Zoning Code, Title 33, zoning code, 3305.01, Certificate of Zoning Clearance code was enacted in approximately 1979.


  20. The City of Columbus Zoning Code, Title 33, zoning code, 3305.01, Certificate of Zoning Clearance code as enacted in approximately 1979 did not replace or rename any existing requirement, but was new and an addition to the zoning code.


  21. There has been no construction or alteration of any building or structure; no establishment, change, or modification in the use of any building, structure or land at in or on the property in question since 1968.


  22. Enforcement of the provisions of CCC 3305.01 against the auto repair shop at this property is a violation of Ohio Revised Code (hereafter ORC) 713.15.


  23. The attempt to enforce the provisions of CCC 3305.01 against the auto repair shop at this property by injunction is a violation of the Ohio Constitution, Section 16, Article I.


  24. The attempt to enforce the provisions of CCC 3305.01 against the auto repair shop at this property by injunction is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Section 1, Article XIV, amendments.


  25. The plaintiff and their duly authorized representatives, as the local authority in matters of zoning and the enforcement of same, do have or should have full knowledge of the laws and their application in zoning matters.


  26. The plaintiff as issuer of building, heating, electrical and sign permits, have or should have written evidence in their files attesting to the fact that the auto repair shop property use predates current CCC 3305.01.


  27. The defendants have, within the past 20 months, submitted written material to the plaintiff attesting to the fact that the lawful property use predates current CCC 3305.01.


Counterclaim

  1. All previous paragraphs of his Answer and Counterclaim are incorporated by reference as if fully rewritten and alleged herein.


  2. This action is done with malice based on the improper purpose of denying the defendants complete legal use of their property and thereby causing substantial harm.


  3. By this action the plaintiff is maliciously misusing the legal process to accomplish a purpose not warranted by law.


  4. By this action the plaintiff is engaging is Abuse of Process.


  5. The plaintiffs methods and deeds in this matter constitute an aggravated, willful, wanton, intentional, reckless, and deliberate disregard of the defendants rights.


  6. As a result of this action, the plaintiff has caused the defendants to expend hundreds of irreplaceable hours of time to defend themselves in this action.


  7. As a result of this action, the plaintiff has caused the defendants humiliation, mental stress, and other such intangible damages.


WHEREFORE the defendants demand judgment as follows:

  1. The court determine that ORC 713.15 is applicable to this action.


  2. The court determine that CCC 3305.01 does not apply to the auto repair shop at 613 E. Whittier Street as it currently exists.


  3. The court determine that the commercial auto repair shop use of 613 E. Whittier Street is a legal conforming use of the property.


  4. The court determine that the plaintiff either knew or should have known that CCC 3305.01 does not apply to the auto repair shop at 613 E. Whittier Street as it currently exists.


  5. The plaintiff be enjoined from any future harassment or retaliatory acts against the defendants or the 613 E. Whittier Street property tenant as a result of this action.


  6. The court determine that the plaintiff's case constitutes an Abuse of Process.


  7. The plaintiffs methods and deeds in this matter constitute an aggravated, willful, wanton, intentional, reckless, and deliberate disregard of the defendants rights.


  8. The defendants be compensated for the many hours of time expended to defend themselves in this action.


  9. The defendants be compensated for the their expenses required to defend themselves in this action.


  10. The defendants be awarded punitive damages in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00).


  11. Other relief as the defendants may be entitled to in law and equity.


John E. Rees, Pro Se, Defendant

Carol Ann Rees, Pro Se, Defendant

Return to story

Your comments are invited. E-mail to John Rees at: jerees@att.net