Deerfield Twp. v. Mason, 2013 Ohio 779

Deerfield Township sued Mason for breach of contract seeking payment for taxes Deerfield would have received but for annexation of Territory to Mason.
Territory is a 262.36-acre area in Deerfield where P&G built a research facility after tax abatements.
Mason and Deerfield executed an annexation/compensation agreement on October 24, 1995 to offset lost revenues under Ohio Rev. Code 709.191.
Agreement provides annual payments to Deerfield for lost tax revenues; payments depend on taxes that would have been received but for the annexation and on future changes in tax rates.
Post-annexation, fire and parks levies (2000s) and the shift to the commercial activity tax (HB 66) with the replacement fund affected how taxes are computed under the agreement; dispute arises as to whether Mason must reimburse for these changes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does section 2(d) include new levies under the contract?	Deerfield	Mason	Yes; 2(d) includes changes in tax rates and new levies.
Is Deerfield entitled to reimbursement for fire/parks levies and for changes under the commercial activity tax (replacement fund)	Deerfield	Mason	Yes; Deerfield entitled to reimbursement for both fire/parks taxes and post‑annexation state-law changes.
Whether prejudgment interest accrues from January 1 each year	Deerfield	Mason	Accrual from January 1 each calendar year was proper; prejudgment interest awarded.

Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397 (Ohio 2011) (court looks to plain language; extrinsic evidence limited when interpreting contract terms)
Shifrin v. Forest City Ents., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (1992) (plain language governs contract interpretation; avoid creating new terms)
Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (1978) (undefined words given ordinary meaning in contracts)
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397 (2011) (emphasizes harmonizing contract provisions and plain meaning)