2021 Ohio 4031
Ohio2021Background
- Pike County enacted a 2% bed tax in 1997 (later increased to 3%) and directed most proceeds to the Pike County Chamber of Commerce to be administered by the local convention and visitors’ bureau (the bureau), which incorporated in 1998.
- A 2019 Ohio auditor report found serious financial-control deficiencies at the bureau and issued findings for recovery against bureau officials.
- In February 2019 commissioners adopted a new resolution keeping a larger share for county administrative/beautification purposes and requiring greater financial reporting from the bureau.
- In July 2020 the commissioners passed Resolution 504-20 redirecting the bureau’s portion of bed-tax proceeds to the Chamber (or a Chamber-controlled entity) “acting as a Convention and Visitors Bureau” because of the auditor’s findings.
- The bureau filed an original action in mandamus seeking (1) an order that commissioners disburse future bed-tax proceeds to the bureau under R.C. 5739.09 and (2) recovery of past bed-tax proceeds withheld or redirected; after an alternative writ, the parties submitted evidence.
- After filing, commissioners passed March 2021 resolutions formally designating the Chamber as interim recipient and directing future proceeds to it; the Supreme Court considered the record and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has mandamus jurisdiction (vs. an injunction/declaratory relief) | Bureau: seeks a writ compelling disbursement under R.C. 5739.09, so mandamus is appropriate | County: relator is effectively asking the Court to enjoin commissioners from paying the Chamber, so relief is injunctive and not mandamus | Court: Mandamus jurisdiction exists because relator seeks to compel official compliance with statute rather than principally to enjoin action (Zupancic reasoning) |
| Whether commissioners may replace the designated “convention and visitors’ bureau” that receives bed-tax proceeds | Bureau: once designated, it is the “convention and visitors’ bureau operating within the county” and statute requires proceeds be spent solely for it | County: statute is silent on designation mechanics; commissioners have discretion to designate (and redesignate) the entity that will act as the bureau | Court: R.C. 5739.09(A) is silent on designation change; commissioners have discretion to designate a new recipient and may withdraw designation from one entity and confer it on another |
| Whether commissioners abused their discretion in redirecting funds to the Chamber | Bureau: redirecting funds was per se unlawful and arbitrary given earlier designation | County: action was a reasonable response to auditor findings of financial mismanagement | Court: No abuse of discretion shown; commissioners’ actions were not arbitrary or unconscionable in light of auditor findings and their stated reasons |
| Whether bureau is entitled to retrospective monetary relief (past withheld funds) or attorney fees | Bureau: seeks recovery of withheld past bed-tax receipts and fees | County: monetary judgments are not proper in an original mandamus action; bureau also no longer is the designated recipient | Court: Retrospective monetary relief and attorney fees denied; mandamus cannot award money judgments here and bureau lacks a current legal right to the past funds because commissioners validly redesignated the recipient |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (mandamus requires clear legal right, clear legal duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Zupancic v. Limbach, 58 Ohio St.3d 130 (mandamus appropriate to compel adherence to statutory allocation rather than to seek a prohibitory injunction)
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 512 (statutory silence can be read as a grant of discretion)
- State ex rel. St. Clair Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Hamilton, 156 Ohio St.3d 272 (mandamus may address intergovernmental tax remittances but monetary judgments may require other fora)
- State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629 (if the real object is injunctive/declaratory relief, mandamus jurisdiction is improper)