State City of Xenia v. Greene Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
| Decision Date | 16 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2018CA0021 |
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 4801 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CITY OF XENIA, OHIO, et al. Petitioners-Relators v. GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al. Respondents |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
[Original Action in Mandamus]
DECISION AND ENTRY
Introduction
{¶ 1} The City of Xenia, Ohio seeks to annex certain territory that is located in Xenia Township. After the Greene County Board of Commissioners denied the City's annexation petition, the City asked this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to approve it. The Board now seeks summary judgment dismissing the mandamus action. We find that the Board is not entitled to dismissal. This matter will proceed.
{¶ 2} The parties agree on nearly all the underlying facts. On September 21, 2017, the City of Xenia, Ohio (the City) filed with the Greene County Board of Commissioners (the Board) a petition for annexation of 45.637 acres, more or less, in Xenia Township (the Petition). The territory to be annexed is comprised of about 41 acres of a bike path that is owned by the City, and about 4.5 acres owned by the State of Ohio, which is located at one end of the bike path. The City filed the Petition as the owner of the territory, and also participated in the proceedings as the municipal corporation to which annexation was proposed.
{¶ 3} The Petition seeks what is commonly referred to as an "expedited type 2" annexation, which is a process that "allow[s] a unanimous group of defined owners to seek annexation in a streamlined fashion." State ex rel. Cornell v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2d Dist. Greene No. 13-CA-23, 2014-Ohio-5584, ¶ 27; R.C. 709.023. The Xenia Township Board of Trustees (the Township) objected to annexation. On November 2, 2017, the Greene County Board of Commissioners concluded that the Petition did not satisfy all the statutory requirements for annexation and voted to deny the Petition. This mandamus case was filed thereafter on May 23, 2018 by the City and its agent, Donnette Fisher.
{¶ 4} The Board initially moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). We converted the motion to one for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R.12(B) and allowed the parties an opportunity to supplement their filings. Pending before the court are the following:
The parties have also filed a Joint Statement of Facts and have identified joint exhibits, in addition to the exhibits proffered by the City in support of its mandamus complaint. Additional facts will be discussed as relevant below.
{¶ 5} A "writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy should a board of county commissioners fail to perform its statutory duty in regard to a Type 2 annexation petition." Lawrence Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Canal Fulton, 185 Ohio App.3d 267, 2009-Ohio-6822, 923 N.E.2d 1180, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.); see also R.C. 709.023(G) ().
{¶ 6} To be entitled to an extraordinary writ of mandamus, the City must ultimately show (1) that it has a clear legal right to the relief sought, (2) that the Board has a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and (3) that the City has no plain and adequate remedy at law. Cornell, 2d Dist. Greene No. 13-CA-23, 2014-Ohio-5584, at ¶ 23.
{¶ 7} The City "must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief by demonstrating that it has satisfied all of the statutory conditions for annexation." State ex rel. National Lime & Stone Co. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 152 Ohio St.3d 393, 2017-Ohio-8348, 97 N.E.3d 404, ¶ 26. "If each of the conditions of R.C. 709.023(E) has been met, the commissioners have a clear legal duty to approve the annexation." Id., citing R.C. 709.023(F). "Because R.C. 709.023(G) states that there is no appeal in law or equity from any resolution of the commissioners regarding an expedited annexation but that 'any party may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the board of county commissioners to perform its duties under this section,' the third requirement for the issuance of [a mandamus] writ - that the petitioner lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law - has been satisfied." Id.
{¶ 8} Original actions filed in this court "ordinarily proceed as civil actions under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure." Loc.App.R. 8(A). Pursuant to those rules, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Civ.R. 56(C). It must appear "from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party." State ex rel. Levin v. Schremp, 73 Ohio St.3d 733, 734, 654 N.E.2d 1258 (1995). Here, only the Board has moved for summary judgment, so we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the City.
{¶ 9} The complaint proposes three theories in support of its request for mandamus relief. The third theory of relief is the one typically raised in annexation cases: that the Petition satisfied all the statutory conditions for annexation, and that the City is therefore entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to approve the Petition. The first and second theories of relief, however, assert that other deficiencies in the Board's process entitle the City to a writ of mandamus approving the Petition. The alleged deficiencies are that the Board improperly held a public hearing in November 2017 on the Petition, and that the Board delegated its statutory duties to others (i.e., the county prosecutor, engineer, and planning commission) when evaluating the Petition.
{¶ 10} Only the third theory is a viable theory of relief under the circumstances before us. While mandamus relief is available "to compel the board of county commissioners to perform its duties under" R.C. 709.023(G), such a writ to approve a petition requires proof "that [petitioner] has satisfied all of the statutory conditions for annexation." National Lime, 152 Ohio St.3d 393, 2017-Ohio-8348, 97 N.E.3d 404, at ¶ 26. If petitioner has, then "the commissioners have a clear legal duty to approve the annexation." Id., citing R.C. 709.023(F).
{¶ 11} In contrast, the procedural deficiencies alleged by the City would not entitle the City to the automatic approval of its Petition. This is because of how a mandamus claim is structured. The first two elements of a mandamus claim mirror each other; the clear legal right claimed by the petitioner corresponds to the respondent's clear legal duty. See State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath, 153 Ohio St.3d 287, 2018-Ohio-3018, 104 N.E.3d 779, ¶ 4 (); Cornell, 2d Dist. Greene No. 13-CA-23, 2014-Ohio-5584, at ¶ 35 (). If both elements are proved, the appropriate relief is that the respondent be required to satisfy the particular duty at issue. See generally State ex rel. Benton's Village Sanitation Serv., Inc. v. Usher, 34 Ohio St.2d 59, 295 N.E.2d 657 (1973) ().
{¶ 12} In this case, the rights and duties identified in the first two theories of relief correspond to each other, but do not correspond to the requested relief. That is, the claimed right to have no public hearing on the Petition (or, phrased differently, the right to have a petition considered without a public hearing) could arguably support a request for a writ of mandamus to compel the Board not to have a hearing. The claimed right to have a petition considered without input from other county officials could conceivably support a request for a writ of mandamus compelling the Board not to seek their input. R.C. 709.023(G); but see State ex rel. Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 145 Ohio App.3d 22, 25, 761 N.E.2d 1072 (8th Dist.2001) ().1 But evidence that the Board failed to perform these claimed duties does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the Board should be compelled to perform different duties, i.e., to approve the Petition. We are not persuaded that the claimed process errors present viable theories of relief toward a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to approve the Petition.
{¶ 13} Although we recognize the factual and legal disagreements between the parties on these issues, we need not make any determination whether the alleged rights/duties are enforceable in mandamus, or whether the Board acted improperly. Weinstead conclude that even if the parties agreed that procedural errors were made, the City would not consequently, automatically, be entitled to the approval of its Petition. That relief is available only where the City shows that the Petition satisfied all the statutory requirements....
To continue reading
Request your trial