Hiznay v. Boardman Twp.
2017 Ohio 1212
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William Hiznay owns a two-family rental unit in Boardman Township and sued for declaratory judgment challenging Township Resolution 14-01 (later amended by 15-01), which requires landlord registration, annual fees, inspections, and rental-unit maintenance standards.
- Boardman is a largely developed township (~40,000 population) with ~19,000 dwellings; 4,000–5,000 are non-owner-occupied and ~40% of those owners live outside the Township.
- Township data showed concentrated pre-1980 rental conversions, complaint patterns tied to absentee landlords, interior habitability condemnations, and neighborhood property-value declines (>10% in affected areas).
- The Resolution: requires annual certification and an annual fee scaled by number of units (fees deposited in a restricted fund), authorizes complaint-based inspections (including administrative search warrants if needed), sets maintenance standards, and imposes penalties for violations.
- Trial court upheld the Resolution as a valid exercise of the Township’s police power and concluded the assessment is a fee, not an impermissible tax; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Resolution impermissibly establishes building standards/codes | Hiznay: Resolution creates/changes building/maintenance standards prohibited to townships under R.C. 504.13 | Boardman: Resolution sets property-maintenance standards (not building codes) within home-rule police power | Court: Resolution regulates maintenance, not building codes; no demonstrated conflict with county codes; claim rejected |
| Whether the Resolution conflicts with state general laws (Chs. 4112, 5321, 5323, 1923) | Hiznay: Resolution conflicts explicitly/implicitly with landlord-tenant and other state statutes | Boardman: Resolution is consistent or supplemental; any limited conflict severable | Court: No merit as to 4112 and 5323; generally not preempted by 5321 except for one trash-receptacle provision severed; other claims undeveloped and rejected |
| Whether the required assessment is an illegal tax rather than a permissible fee | Hiznay: Annual registration charges function as a tax (general revenue purpose) and exceed township authority | Boardman: Charges are regulatory fees tied to services/program costs, held in a restricted fund for enforcement and administration | Court: Applying Withrow/Drees/Am. Landfill factors, assessment is a regulatory fee (not a tax); upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Drees Co. v. Hamilton Twp., 970 N.E.2d 916 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishes taxes from fees and applies multi-factor test)
- State ex rel. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. Bd. v. Withrow, 579 N.E.2d 705 (Ohio 1991) (four-factor fee-vs-tax test focusing on regulatory purpose, restricted use, service exchange, and adjustability)
- Am. Landfill, Inc. v. Stark/Tuscarawas/Wayne Joint Solid Waste Mgt. Dist., 166 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 1999) (three-factor analysis: imposition entity, assessed parties, and benefit/use of funds)
- San Juan Cellular Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. of Puerto Rico, 967 F.2d 683 (1st Cir. 1992) (classic tax v. regulatory-fee distinctions and emphasis on ultimate use of revenues)