McNair v. City of Brecksville
2017 Ohio 7401
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brecksville City Council enacted Ordinance 4890 on Dec. 16, 2014, reducing a resident credit against municipal income tax from 100% to 87.5%, signed by the mayor the same day.
- Ordinance was labeled an "emergency" measure but was read at three council meetings and passed by a 4–3 vote (four votes required for nonemergency ordinances under the city Charter).
- Plaintiff Eben O. McNair, a Brecksville resident who worked in Cleveland, challenged the Ordinance seeking declaratory relief, refund, injunctive relief, and related claims; he argued the Ordinance was not properly enacted as an emergency and thus invalid.
- Defendants (Brecksville, Law Director Price, and RITA) moved for judgment on the pleadings; trial court granted those motions and dismissed McNair’s complaint.
- On appeal, the court considered whether the Ordinance was validly enacted and effective despite its emergency label and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Ordinance enactment | McNair: labeling as "emergency" required a 5‑member supermajority; Ordinance lacked that and so was invalid as emergency legislation | Brecksville: Ordinance complied with nonemergency procedure (3 readings, 4‑vote passage) and thus valid as a regular ordinance; its emergency label does not invalidate it | Court: Ordinance valid as a regular ordinance (complied with Article IV §10); lack of emergency formalities did not void it |
| Effective date and challenge mechanism | McNair: ordinance mislabeling prevented timely referendum/other challenges; effective date contested | Brecksville: Ordinance (an annual tax levy) may take effect upon mayoral approval; challenge must be by referendum per Charter | Court: Ordinance effective upon mayoral signature; challenge mechanism is referendum under Charter; plaintiff cannot state facts entitling relief |
| Liability/relief against RITA | McNair: sought relief against RITA as tax collector/agent | RITA: agency relationship; relief against city resolves claims against RITA | Court: Judgment against city disposes of claims against RITA; affirm dismissal |
| Pleading sufficiency for judgment on pleadings | McNair: facts support declaratory relief/refund/unjust enrichment | Defs: under Civ.R.12(C) plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts entitling relief | Court: Applying de novo review, construed pleadings in plaintiff's favor but found no set of facts would entitle him to relief; judgment on pleadings proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Youngstown v. Aiello, 156 Ohio St. 32, 100 N.E.2d 62 (Ohio 1951) (emergency enactment formalities not followed but ordinance upheld as valid regular legislation)
- Vansuch v. State, 112 Ohio St. 688, 148 N.E. 232 (Ohio 1925) (ordinance validity and effective enactment presumption absent contrary proof)
- Thompson v. Cincinnati, 2 Ohio St.2d 292, 208 N.E.2d 747 (Ohio 1965) (municipalities have power to tax incomes)
- Benua v. Columbus, 170 Ohio St. 64, 162 N.E.2d 467 (Ohio 1959) (municipal income tax authority principles)