2019 Ohio 1744
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- North Canton City Council enacted Ordinance 20‑11 (2011) creating a board to hear disputes over water charges/rules (the "Water Board" composed of the Law, Finance, and Administration directors).
- In 2017 Council enacted Ordinance 88‑2017 to expand access to water/sewer for nonresidents and authorize the Water Board and the chair of the Water, Sewer and Rubbish Committee to negotiate out‑of‑city service agreements.
- Relator Charles Osborne (city property owner/taxpayer) challenged Ordinances 20‑11 and 88‑2017, arguing they violated R.C. 743.03 and exceeded City/Charter authority; he sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the Water Board.
- The City defended under its Charter and the Home Rule Amendment, arguing Council had authority to create boards and to authorize water charges.
- The trial court granted the City’s Civ. R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings; Osborne appealed. The appellate court reviews the pleadings de novo and must construe all material allegations and reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether language "body authorized by charter" in R.C. 743.04(A) is superfluous or inoperative | Osborne: statute should require that an official/body be expressly authorized by a city charter to assess water rents; the phrase has operative effect and cannot be ignored | City: the statute permits the director or any other city official or body authorized by charter to assess rents; the phrase modifies "body" and is not superfluous | Court: phrase modifies "body"; reading is grammatical and the court will not insert words; did not render language inoperative — assignment overruled |
| Whether Ordinance 20‑11 actually created the Water Board and whether that is a factual issue inappropriate for 12(C) disposition | Osborne: creation of the Water Board is a disputed factual question; trial court improperly resolved facts on a pleadings motion | City: the ordinance’s plain language creates a board of specified directors to hear water disputes; interpretation is a question of law appropriate on 12(C) | Court: ordinance unambiguously created the Board described; creation authorized by Charter; no improper factual determination — assignment overruled |
| Whether the City exceeded its Home Rule authority by creating/empowering the Water Board and enacting Ordinance 88‑2017 | Osborne: Ordinances conflict with state law (R.C. 743.03/743.04) and thus exceed municipal power | City: Ordinances are authorized by the Charter and Home Rule; R.C. 743.04 is not a general law that preempts the Charter/ordinance | Court: three‑part Home Rule test not satisfied (R.C. 743.04 not a general law); City did not exceed authority; ordinance valid — assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Rich v. Erie County Department of Human Resources, 106 Ohio App.3d 88 (standard that appellate court independently reviews 12(C) dismissal)
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (12(C) presents questions of law; nonmoving party entitled to favorable inferences)
- Conant v. Johnson, 1 Ohio App.2d 133 (evidence cannot be considered on motion for judgment on the pleadings)
- Trustees of Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund v. [unnamed], 69 Ohio St.3d 409 (court must give effect to words used and not insert words)
- State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (statute/ordinance interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Mendenhall v. City of Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (Home Rule three‑part test framework)
- Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (factors for determining whether a statute is a general law)
- State ex rel. Committee for Charter Amendment, City Trash Collection v. Westlake, 97 Ohio St.3d 100 (scope of charter city powers under Home Rule)