Medina ex rel. Jocke v. Medina
2021 Ohio 4353
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Medina City Council passed Ordinance No. 98-19 (June 24, 2019), enacted as an emergency, authorizing the Mayor to enter a cost‑sharing agreement with Medina County for feasibility/design/construction‑management services for a proposed joint courthouse (not yet a construction contract); Mayor promptly executed the agreement.
- A citizens’ initiative petition to refer the matter failed for insufficient valid signatures; plaintiffs (taxpayers) filed suit Oct. 22, 2019 challenging Ordinance 98-19; supplemental complaint (Mar. 23, 2020) added challenge to Ordinance No. 49-20 (Mar. 9, 2020) which increased the authorized funding and clarified payment to the County.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the City; it suggested plaintiffs lost the ability to challenge the emergency enactment by failing to pursue a referendum and otherwise found no unlawful enactment.
- On appeal plaintiffs raised timeliness/referendum, charter/home‑rule limits on emergency ordinances, applicability of R.C. 153.61 (joint construction statute), failure to comply with three‑reading and local council rules/public‑notice, invalid amendment form, and entitlement to injunctive relief and restitution.
- Appellate court reviewed de novo, concluded Ordinance 98-19 became effective in due course (no later than 30 days) so emergency status challenge is ultimately immaterial, rejected plaintiffs’ statutory and procedural challenges, and affirmed summary judgment for the City; subsequent voter initiatives did not moot the appeal because the ordinances remain in effect and plaintiffs seek money recovery and injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / referendum / emergency status of Ordinance 98-19 | Emergency ordinances cannot be challenged by referendum; R.C. 733.60 gives one‑year relief to enjoin municipal contracts; equitable relief available | Plaintiffs could have pursued a referendum if ordinance lacked emergency status; plaintiffs waited beyond 30‑day window so ordinance took effect | Court: Whether it was emergency is now immaterial; because plaintiffs did not challenge within 30 days, ordinance took effect as regular ordinance and timeliness argument fails |
| Charter/home‑rule prohibition on emergency surrender/joint exercise of power | Charter bars emergency enactment authorizing surrender/joint exercise of city power (Ordinance 98-19 improperly surrenders/joints powers) | Ordinance authorized only a feasibility/design cost‑sharing study, not surrender/joint exercise of powers | Court: Moot as to emergency status; ordinance effective in due course; no basis to invalidate under charter given operative facts |
| Applicability of R.C. 153.61 (joint construction statute) to the cost‑sharing agreement | Contract/ordinance should comply with R.C. 153.61 (must set forth construction, title, management, cost apportionment) | Agreement only funds preliminary planning/design; it does not provide for joint construction/ownership/management so R.C. 153.61 does not apply | Court: R.C. 153.61 inapplicable because parties contracted for feasibility/design phase, not for construction/acquisition/management |
| Three readings / local council rules / public‑notice (Medina Codified Ordinances) | Council failed to read ordinances on three different days and failed procedural inquiries; public‑notice/rules violations invalidate ordinances | Medina is a charter city with own ordinance (113.02(a)) governing readings; minutes show unanimous votes, no member sought multiple readings; Council may suspend rules | Court: R.C. 731.17 (three readings) inapplicable to charter city; no invalidation where no member objected and Council effectively waived/suspended rules; public‑notice claims unavailing |
| Validity of Ordinance 49-20 (form of amendment; amount authorized) | 49-20 unlawfully amended 98-19 without restating/repealing per local rule 113.02(b); it also authorized $702.50 more than contract required | Plaintiffs waived procedural argument by not raising 113.02(b) below; rounding up $702.50 is not misapplication of funds | Court: Plaintiffs forfeited 113.02(b) claim at trial; rounding authorization does not invalidate ordinance; 49-20 valid |
| Injunctive relief / restitution under R.C. 733.56 | Plaintiffs sought injunction and return of funds for misapplication/illegal contract | City contends no unlawful expenditure or irreparable harm; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on merits | Court: No injunction; plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of appellate de novo review on summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (Civil Rule 56 summary judgment standards)
- City of Youngstown v. Aiello, 156 Ohio St. 32 (1951) (ordinance ineffective to be referred once it takes effect in due course even if improperly passed as emergency)
- McNair v. City of Brecksville, 96 N.E.3d 1078 (8th Dist. 2017) (ordinance becomes effective as regular ordinance despite improper emergency passage)
- State ex rel. Hasselbach v. Sandusky Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 N.E.3d 1128 (Ohio 2019) (purpose of referendum is to submit an otherwise valid ordinance to voters)
- Wesolowski v. City of Broadview Hts. Planning Comm., 140 N.E.3d 545 (Ohio 2019) (municipal exercise of police powers may be subject to different review; cited for distinction on home‑rule/local vs. statewide concerns)