“Without notice or warning, the city razed the Jones’ trees and shrubs, turning the rearmost 15 feet of their property from a lush natural fence, thick with honeysuckle, saplings, and trees, into a barren moonscape,” the Jones’ lawyer asserted.
The couple had requested judgment against the city amounting to $25,000 in damages.
But late last month, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, asserting the city is immune from liability in the matter.
“The city appreciates the court’s time and diligence it took to review the facts of the case,” Brookville City Manager Jack Kuntz said Monday. “Our entire staff continue to work tirelessly on moving Brookville forward and build upon our reputation as one of the best communities to raise a family and retire in southwest Ohio, as well as one of the best communities to own and operate a business in within the Miami Valley.”
The case centered around the Jones’ home on Hunters Run Drive. The property abuts the Brookville PeeWee Football Field to the east.
According to an affidavit in the court record, Brookville Public Works employee Jon Weist testified he and his crew performed routine maintenance on the football field in October 2023, which included the removal of “vegetation overgrowth consisting of honeysuckle bushes, weeds, and dead limbs from trees.”
New evergreen trees were then planted on the cleared city property, the affidavit claims.
But the Joneses argued the city failed to explain “how the maintenance of the football field required the city to lay waste the rearmost 15 feet of the Jones’ backyard.”
“(W)hen the city’s men left the football field and entered the Jones’ property to destroy the Jones’ trees and bushes, those men were not maintaining the football field,” the couple’s lawyer opined in a court memorandum.
The city of Brookville cited the Ohio Revised Code and relevant case law to argue immunity from liability, as the alleged property damage was caused while city crews were performing the governmental function of grounds maintenance.
A judge ruled in the city’s favor that immunity from liability does apply in this instance, further articulating that the couple “failed to assert a claim for deprivation of a federally protected right.”
The Joneses could not be reached for comment.
About the Author
