Bd. of Cty. Commrs. v. Bd. of Trustees
| Decision Date | 04 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. L-06-1074.,No. L-06-1091.,L-06-1074.,L-06-1091. |
| Citation | 870 N.E.2d 791,171 Ohio App.3d 354,2007 Ohio 2141 |
| Parties | BOARD OF LUCAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Appellant, v. WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, John A. Borell and Karlene D. Henderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant.
R. Michael Frank, Toledo, for appellees and cross-appellants Anton J. Urbas and Timothy J. Pedro.
Christopher F. Parker, Toledo, for amicus curiae and cross-appellees, the petition circulators.
{¶ 1} This is appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2003, a group of Waterville Township residents ("the circulators"), who are designated as cross-appellees,1 filed a petition in which they asked the Lucas County Board of Commissioners to erect a new township pursuant to R.C. 503.09. On June 12, 2003, the board passed Resolution No. 03-808. One of the clauses in the resolution states: "[T]he Petition meets all of the requirements of R.C. 503.09." The resolution further indicates, however, that several residents of Waterville Township contended that R.C. 503.09 was unconstitutional and that there were conflicting appellate decisions on the constitutionality of the statute. The board therefore asked the Lucas County prosecutor to institute, pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721, a declaratory judgment action on behalf of the board to determine the constitutionality of R.C. 503.09.
{¶ 3} The present declaratory judgment action was filed on June 12, 2003. The board named a number of defendants including the circulators and cross-appellants, Anton J. Urbas and Timothy J. Pedro. Urbas is a nonfreehold elector who has resided in Waterville Township for 26 years. Pedro is a freehold elector who has resided in the village of Waterville for ten years and is a Waterville Township trustee. In their complaint, the board asked the common pleas court to determine the constitutionality of R.C. 503.09 and "the rights, status, and legal relationship of the parties therein."
{¶ 4} Urbas and Pedro filed an answer and a counterclaim against the board, asking the court below to issue a declaratory judgment finding that R.C. 503.09 is unconstitutional because it deprived them of equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2, Article I, Ohio Constitution, Ohio's Self-Governance Clause. Urbas and Pedro also filed a cross-claim against the circulators in which they not only challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 503.09 but also asked the court to declare that the petitions submitted to the board by the circulators were invalid.
{¶ 5} The circulators filed an answer and a counterclaim against the board based upon the board's Resolution Nos. 02-1008 and 02-1009, both dated July 25, 2002. In Resolution No. 02-1008, the board denied a petition, filed pursuant to R.C. 503.09, to erect a new township excluding the villages of Waterville and Whitehouse because it was not signed by a majority of freehold electors in that portion of Waterville Township outside the village of Whitehouse. Resolution No. 02-1009 denied the petition because it was not signed by a majority of freehold electors in that portion of Waterville Township outside the village of Waterville. In their counterclaim, the circulators sought a decision from the common pleas court finding that Resolution Nos. 02-1008 and 02-1009 were based upon an incorrect interpretation of the law and ordering the board to adopt a Resolution granting their petition to erect a new township excluding the villages of Waterville and Whitehouse.
{¶ 6} The circulators also filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which they asked the court to find that R.C. 503.09 is constitutional. Urbas and Pedro filed a combined motion for summary judgment and memorandum in opposition to the circulators contending that no genuine issue of material fact existed on the question of whether R.C. 503.09 was unconstitutional. Both sides filed further memoranda supporting their positions on the issue.
{¶ 7} On December 30, 2004, the trial court entered a judgment declaring that R.C. 503.09 is constitutional. Urbas and Pedro filed a notice of appeal from this judgment. This court, however, found that the December 30, 2004 judgment was not a final, appealable order, because the circulators' request for a judgment ordering the board to issue a resolution to grant their petition to create a new township was not decided by the trial court. Bd. of Lucas Cty. Commrs. v. Waterville Twp. Bd. of Trustees (June 15, 2005), 6th Dist. No. L-05-1033. We dismissed the appeal.
{¶ 8} Subsequently, the circulators moved for summary judgment on the cross-claim asserted by Urbas and Pedro. The circulators maintained that contrary to the assertions of Urbas and Pedro, R.C. 503.09 does not contain any specific requirements for a petition in which freehold electors seek the creation of a new township. Urbas and Pedro responded by moving for summary judgment on their cross-claim. The circulators voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, their counterclaim against the board.
{¶ 9} On January 30, 2006, the court below entered a judgment in which it determined that the circulators' petition, filed on April 11, 2003, did not meet the requirements of R.C. 503.09 because the petition was not accompanied by "a map accurately setting forth such territory" to be made into a new township. The court reasoned that it was crucial for electors to know what they were signing or voting for when they signed the petition.
{¶ 10} The board appeals the judgment of the trial court and asserts the following assignments of error:
{¶ 11} "1. The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the January 30, 2006 Opinion and Judgment Entry finding that the petition filed by the Circulators on April 11, 2003 was invalid, since the Appellant's Resolution No. 03-808 was not a final order in accordance with R.C. 503.09 through 503.13.
{¶ 12} "2. The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the January 30, 2006 Opinion and Judgment Entry finding that the petition filed by the Circulators on April 11, 2003 was invalid, since the Appellees' August 4, 2004 counterclaim and cross-claim did not comply with R.C. 307.56 an Chapters 2506.
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} In their cross-appeal, Urbas and Pedro set forth the following cross-assignments of error:
{¶ 15} "(a) The trial court erred in failing to find that the `freeholder' requirement of O.R.C. 503.09 denies equal protection of the laws under the Constitutions of Ohio and the United States to non-freehold electors who live in an unincorporated territory of a township.
{¶ 16} "(b) The trial court erred in failing to find that the requirement of O.R.C. 503.09 that only freehold electors living in the unincorporated portions of the Township can vote or be counted for the purpose of separation denies equal protection of the laws under the Constitutions of Ohio and the United States to freehold electors who reside within the township, but outside the unincorporated territory of the township.
{¶ 17} "(c) The trial court erred in failing to find that O.R.C. 503.09 violates Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Ohio."
{¶ 18} The circulators did not file a notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment; however, we allowed them to file an amicus brief, which addresses the question of subject-matter jurisdiction raised by the board.
{¶ 19} Because they have the potential to be dispositive of this cause, we will first consider the cross-assignments of error propounded by cross-appellants, Urbas and Pedro.
{¶ 20} The December 30, 2004 judgment on the question of the constitutionality of R.C. 503.09 does not indicate that it was entered in favor of the board on their request for a declaratory judgment or whether it was premised on the circulators' motion for summary judgment. In any event, determination of an alleged constitutional claim is a matter of law; therefore, we conduct a de novo review of the trial court's judgment on this issue. Hood v. Rose, 153 Ohio App.3d 199, 2003-Ohio-3268, 792 N.E.2d 736, ¶ 12, citing Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576, 697 N.E.2d 208.
{¶ 21} The Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Section 2, Article I, Ohio Constitution, are functional equivalents. Desenco, Inc. v. Akron (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 535, 544, 706 N.E.2d 323. Therefore, cross-appellants' first and second assignments of error will be considered together.
{¶ 22} The Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2, Article I, Ohio Constitution, require a state to provide equal protection of the law to each person within its jurisdiction. Conley v. Shearer (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 284, 288-289, 595 N.E.2d 862. Class legislation or class action is not totally precluded, however. Id. at 288, 595 N.E.2d 862. When a statute is applicable to all persons under like circumstances and operates "alike upon all persons similarly situated," it does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses. Id. at 288-289, 595 N.E.2d 862.
{¶ 23} We must first determine whether any classifications are created by R.C. 503.09. The statute reads:
{¶ 24} ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n
...is no allowance in Article I, Section 2 to create a favored (or disfavored) class of voters. See Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Waterville Twp. Bd. of Trustees , 171 Ohio App.3d 354, 2007-Ohio-2141, 870 N.E.2d 791, ¶ 25-26, 32, 41 (6th Dist.) (holding that such favored and disfavored classes ......
- Midwest Media Property, L.L.C. v. Symmes Tp., Ohio