Mad River Tp., Montgomery County, In re, 134985

Citation266 N.E.2d 864,25 Ohio Misc. 175,54 O.O.2d 215
Decision Date27 July 1970
Docket NumberNo. 134985,134985
Parties, 54 O.O.2d 215 In re Annexation in MAD RIVER TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio

Lee C. Falke, Pros. Atty., and Robert L. Hammond, Bloomingburg, for County Commissioners.

James W. Drake, City Atty., Edward M. Taylor, Jr., and W. Erwin Kilpatrick, Dayton, for City.

Coolidge, Wall, Wood & Matusoff, Dayton, for Annexation Petitioners.

BRENTON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the board of county commissioners in and for Montgomery County, Ohio, pursuant to proceedings and hearing on the proposed annexation of certain territory in Mad River Township, Montgomery County, Ohio.

The proposed annexation was apparently initiated by a majority of the adult freeholders residing in the territory seeking annexation, and adjacent to the city of Dayton, to which city they sought annexation.

It appears from a transcript of the proceedings had that the commissioners reduced the territory to be annexed from 163 acres to 22.6 acres.

The commissioners and the agent for the parties seeking annexation were served with process in this appeal. The commissioners and the agent have filed their respective motions to dismiss the appeal and the matter came on for hearing upon said motions.

The issue presented is the capacity or right of the city of Dayton to maintain this appeal.

Although R.C. 709.031 requires notice to be given to the municipal corporation to be annexed to, it is not a party to such proceedings in the common legal meaning of the term. Obviously it is interested in the outcome of such a hearing and it has a right to be heard as does any other person interested or person appearing in person by virtue of R.C. 709.032.

At common law there was no right of appeal in any action. Appeal stems from a constitutional or statutory right. In Ohio in the judicial process among the courts, one must be some type of party to the action in order to have standing to appeal to a higher court. Reid v. Quigley, 16 Ohio 445.

Furthermore such appellant must have a substantial interest and be aggrieved by the order of decision from which the appeal is sought. Ohio Contract Carriers Assoc., Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission, 140 Ohio St. 160, 42 N.E.2d 758.

In this cause we must look to the code for authority on an appeal from a decision of a board of county commissioners. It appears that the applicable section of the Revised Code is R.C. 307.56. Appeals thereby authorized must conform to and abide by the provisions of Chapter 2506, R.C. It is therein provided that the only requirement for standing to appeal is that the appellant must be a 'Person aggrieved by the decision of the county commissioners.' In law aggrieved means deprived of legal rights of claims. This, then, presents the question of what right or claim does the city of Dayton have to the territory sought to be annexed.

It would appear to this court that although the city of Dayton may have desired to have annexed the total acreage, the commissioners' decision to reduce the acreage does not injure nor prejudice the city in any future annexation proceedings it may desire to initiate. Dabkowski v. Baumann, 175 Ohio St. 89, 191 N.E.2d 809. The commissioners have only refused to permit the freeholders of the area in question to present the entire area to the city of Dayton for approval of annexation or rejection as provided by R.C. 709.01 to 709.11.

A municipal corporation is given the same rights to seek annexation as the owners of adjacent land under R.C. 709.13 to 709.12, except they must first present the plan to the electors of the unincorporated area. In either case, the commissioners apply the same standards in making their decision, while the people of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Bryan v. Chytil
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 2021
    ... ... {¶1} ... This is a consolidated appeal from Ross County Common Pleas ... Court, Probate Division, judgments that (1) determined ... The largest ... assets, according to Pete, were a Janney Montgomery account ... and the Adena Road property. Pete informed Cutright that the ... 10, 1984), citing ... In re Annexation in Mad River Twp., Montgomery Cty., ... 25 Ohio Misc. 175, 176, 266 N.E.2d 864 ... ...
  • In re C.M., Case No. 17CA16
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 2017
    ...Cononi v. Mikhail, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 8161, 1984 WL 5419, *6 (Jan. 10, 1984), citing In re Annexation in Mad River Twp., Montgomery Cty., 25 Ohio Misc. 175, 176, 266 N.E.2d 864 (C.P.1970); see also Black's Law Dictionary 80 (10th Ed.2014) (defining "aggrieved" as "having legal rights ......
  • In re K.K.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • March 7, 2019
    ...Montgomery No. 8161, 1984 Ohio App. LEXIS 8889, 1984 WL 5419, *6 (Jan. 10, 1984), citing In re Annexation in Mad River Twp., Montgomery Cty., 25 Ohio Misc. 175, 176, 266 N.E.2d 864 (C.P.1970); see also Black's Law Dictionary 80 (10th Ed.2014) (defining "aggrieved" as "having legal rights th......
  • Snodgrass v. Testa
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 24, 2015
    ...v. Mikhail, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 8161, 1984 WL 5419, *6 (Jan. 10, 1984), citing In re Annexation in Mad River Twp., Montgomery Cty., 25 Ohio Misc. 175, 176, 266 N.E.2d 864 (C.P.1970) ; see also Black's Law Dictionary 80 (10th Ed.2014) (defining “aggrieved” as “having legal rights that ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT