Vance v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18AP-484,18AP-484 |
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 1322,134 N.E.3d 683 |
| Parties | Bruce A. VANCE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Ohio, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
On brief: Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer LLP, and Joshua R. Cohen, Cleveland; The Roberts Law Firm, and Kevin T. Roberts ; Murray & Murray Co. L.P.A., Dennis E. Murray, Jr., and William H. Bartle, Sandusky; Mansour Gaven LP, Anthony J. Coyne, and Edward O. Patton, Cleveland, for appellants. Argued: Kevin T. Roberts.
On brief: Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, Robert A. Hager, Justin M. Alaburda, Daniel J. Rudary, Akron; [Dave Yost ], Attorney General, Daniel W. Fausey, Christine Mesirow, and Daniel Kim, for appellee. Argued: Daniel J. Rudary.
DECISION
{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Bruce A. Vance, et al., appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, State of Ohio, and dismissing appellants' class action complaint due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On June 26, 2015, appellants, Bruce A. Vance, G. Fredrick Pierce-Ruhland, and the Joseph K. Blystone Trust, filed a class action complaint "on behalf of the more than 100,000 owners of Ohio lands devoted to agricultural production," alleging that the state, by and through Joseph W. Testa, Commissioner of the Ohio Department of Taxation ("tax commissioner"), "illegally collected" more than $ 1 billion of property taxes from appellants by "fail[ing] to calculate Current Agricultural Use Valuation ("CAUV") taxes" in accordance with Ohio law. (Class Action Compl. at ¶ 1.) The complaint further alleges that "[c]ommencing in 2005 and increasingly during the Kasich Administration, CAUV taxes have doubled, tripled and quadrupled, threatening the future of agriculture, Ohio['s] largest industry." (Class Action Compl. at ¶ 1.) The complaint alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as the certification of a class action under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (3).
{¶ 3} In an amended class action complaint filed in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas on July 27, 2015, appellants identified several other named plaintiffs, added the Honorable John R. Kasich, Governor of the state of Ohio ("governor"), as a defendant and added claims for equitable restitution and for compensatory damages based on certain alleged statutory and constitutional violations.
{¶ 4} In a second amended complaint filed by appellants with leave of court on November 9, 2015, appellants identified the state of Ohio as the defendant, removed the tax commissioner and governor as defendants, and deleted the claims for injunctive relief and for compensatory damages based on alleged statutory and constitutional violations. Thus, the remaining claims for relief alleged in the second amended complaint are equitable restitution and declaratory judgment. Appellants' second amended complaint seeks "an award against the State of Ohio for equitable restitution to the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class, entitling them to the difference between what they paid in property taxes since 2005 and what they would have paid had the [Ohio Department of Taxation ("ODT") ] properly and lawfully calculated CAUV." (Second Am. Compl. at 28-29.)
{¶ 5} On February 24, 2016, the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas granted the state's motion to transfer the action to Franklin County. On November 2, 2016, the trial court denied the state's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The trial court found that because the second amended complaint alleged " ‘[t]he State of Ohio has unjustly enriched itself by assessing and retaining the illegitimate property taxes paid as a result of ODT's misapplication of CAUV,’ " the complaint arguably stated a claim for relief against the state sounding in equitable restitution under Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. , 101 Ohio St.3d 74, 2004-Ohio-28, 801 N.E.2d 441. (Nov. 2, 1016 Decision at 6, quoting Second Am. Compl. at ¶ 111.)1 In the November 2, 2016 decision denying the state's motion to dismiss, the trial court stated:
The Court further finds that Defendants' contention that they do not have the funds that were allegedly wrongfully taken from Plaintiffs, is a matter that may be resolved by a motion for summary judgment in the future, but not by the present motion to dismiss.
{¶ 6} On May 12, 2017, the state filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the Court of Claims of Ohio had exclusive jurisdiction of appellants' second amended complaint because any claim for monetary relief against the state asserted therein sounded in legal rather than equitable restitution. In opposing the state's motion, appellants abandoned their allegation that the state assessed and retained the illegitimate property taxes paid as a result of the tax commissioner's misapplication of CAUV. Rather, appellants claimed the respective county auditors and county treasurers acted as agents of the tax commissioner for purposes of assessing and collecting CAUV property taxes. Appellants' further contended the state was unjustly enriched by the retention of overpaid taxes which directly reduce the state's burden of local school funding.
{¶ 7} On May 17, 2018, the trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment as to appellants' claim for equitable restitution and "dismissed" appellants' class action complaint "without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." (Emphasis omitted.) Appellants timely appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 8} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:
{¶ 9} Appellate review of summary judgment is de novo. Gabriel v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. , 10th Dist. No. 14AP-870, 2015-Ohio-2661, 2015 WL 3963953, ¶ 12, citing Byrd v. Arbors E. Subacute & Rehab. Ctr. , 10th Dist. No. 14AP-232, 2014-Ohio-3935, 2014 WL 4459120, ¶ 5. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith 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." Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate only under the following circumstances: (1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, that conclusion being adverse to the nonmoving party. Phillips v. Wilkinson , 10th Dist. No. 17AP-231, 2017-Ohio-8505, 2017 WL 5192038, ¶ 11, citing Byrd at ¶ 6, citing Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. , 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978).
{¶ 10} " ‘[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim.’ " Byrd at ¶ 7, quoting Dresher v. Burt , 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). "Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial." Phillips at ¶ 12, citing Byrd at ¶ 7, citing Dresher at 293, 662 N.E.2d 264.
A. APPELLANTS' ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 11} In appellants' first assignment of error, appellants contend the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the state as to their claim for equitable restitution. The trial court concluded that because appellants failed to produce evidence that CAUV property taxes were collected or held by the treasurer of state, appellants claim for equitable restitution fails, as a matter of law. In appellants' second assignment of error, appellants argue the trial court erred when it dismissed appellants' second amended complaint on finding appellants' claim for monetary relief against the state was legal in nature and, therefore, within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
{¶ 12} Because our resolution of both appellants' first and second assignments of error depends on whether the common pleas court or the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction of any claim for monetary relief against the state alleged in the second amended complaint, we will consider them together.
1. Appellants' First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶ 13} "The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction involves ‘ "a court's power to hear and decide a case on the merits and does not relate to the rights of the parties." ’ " TLC Health Care Servs., LLC v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. , 10th Dist., 2017-Ohio-9198, 102 N.E.3d 589, ¶ 8, quoting Columbus Green Bldg. Forum v. State , 10th Dist., 2012-Ohio-4244, 980 N.E.2d 1, ¶ 14, quoting Vedder v. Warrensville Hts. , 8th Dist. No. 81005, 2002-Ohio-5567, 2002 WL 31320350, ¶ 14. " ‘When presented with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), a trial court must determine "whether any cause of action cognizable by the forum has been raised in the complaint." ’ " TLC Health Care Servs. at ¶ 8, quoting Interim HealthCare of Columbus, Inc. v. State Dept. of Adm. Servs. , 10th Dist. No. 07AP-747, 2008-Ohio-2286, 2008 WL 2025153, ¶ 7, quoting PNP, Inc. v. Ohio Dept....
To continue reading
Request your trial