Hubbard v. Defiance
2013 Ohio 2144
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Hubbard and Holtsberry, Defiance city council members, alleged BORMA health insurance benefits were improperly withheld funded by city; Ordinance 6768 in 2007 required council members to pay 100% of BORMA premiums, and budgets omitted funding for premiums.
- Hubbard continued BORMA in 2007–2008 with substantial out-of-pocket costs; Holtsberry continued in 2007–2008 and stopped in 2009; both sought reimbursement.
- Hubbard filed a declaratory judgment in 2010 claiming unlawful budget appropriation, ordinance enactment, and termination of BORMA benefits; Holtsberry filed a parallel declaratory judgment in 2011.
- In 2012, trial court granted Defiance’s summary judgment and denied cross-motions; Hubbard and Holtsberry appealed; the cases were consolidated for appellate review.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that BORMA benefits were established by ordinance, COD 121.04 and Section 2.07 interplay, and that pre-2008 application of 121.04 was unlawful; remand to determine 2007 entitlement and post-2007 entitlement separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consolidation of Hubbard and Holtsberry was proper | Holtsberry—consolidation inappropriate given differing offices | Court had similar facts; consolidation appropriate | No abuse of discretion; consolidation affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused in evidentiary rulings on public records and affidavits | Affidavits-/public records admissible; opinion evidence should be allowed | Exclusion of improper legal conclusions/hearsay appropriate | No reversible error on evidentiary rulings; some issues sustained as to admissibility |
| Whether BORMA benefits were lawfully established by ordinance | Section 2.07 requires ordinance establishing BORMA benefit | Ordinance No. 5044 established BORMA via mayor; 2.07 satisfied with ordinance auch for establishment | BORMA benefit established by ordinance; Court sustains Hubbard’s entitlement for 2007; Holtsberry limited to 2007 |
| Whether Codified Ordinance 121.04 validly enacted and properly applied | Codified Ordinance 121.04 violated Section 2.07; pre-2008 application unlawful | Ordinance valid; applies from 2008 onward per Charter | Codified Ordinance 121.04 valid but unlawfully applied before Jan 1, 2008; remand for 2007 entitlement and 2008+ denial |
| Whether the trial court correctly denied cross-motions for summary judgment | Entitlements exist; cross-motions should be granted | No entitlement under charter before 2008; summary judgments appropriate | Remand for specific summary judgment on 2007 entitlement; 2008 onward denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Loux v. Lakewood, 120 Ohio App.3d 415 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1963) (salaries of municipal officers are local self-government matters)
- Parsons v. Ferguson, 46 Ohio St.2d 389 (Ohio 1976) (fringe benefits are part of compensation; charter governs salaries/benefits)
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.3d 459 (Ohio 1981) (evidence rules and incorporation by reference in Civ.R. 56(E))
- Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2002) (broad discretion in evidentiary rulings; avoid improper expert law opinions)
- Witzmann v. Adam, 2011-Ohio-379 (Ohio 2d Dist.) (experts cannot give legal opinions; court interprets law)