2019 Ohio 717
Ohio2019Background
- St. Clair Township sued the city of Hamilton seeking a writ of mandamus to force the city to calculate and pay lost-tax-revenue for territory the city annexed prior to March 27, 2002 but from which the township was not excluded until 2016.
- Before March 27, 2002, municipal duty to pay townships for annexed territory depended on annexation; S.B. 5 (effective March 27, 2002) changed the duty to ripen upon exclusion under R.C. 503.07; H.B. 233 (effective August 5, 2016) later repealed and reenacted R.C. 709.19 (substantively like S.B. 5 version but without S.B. 5’s uncodified Section 3).
- Hamilton petitioned the county commissioners in 2016 to create a paper township (Hamilton Township) conforming to the city limits out of previously annexed areas; the board approved the petition in October 2016, effecting exclusion under R.C. 503.07.
- St. Clair then requested lost-tax-revenue payments; Hamilton refused, so St. Clair filed for mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking amounts for tax year 2016 and succeeding years under the current R.C. 709.19 schedule.
- The court concluded the current version of R.C. 709.19 applies (the statute takes effect before the county’s approval) and imposes a municipal duty to pay when territory has been annexed and excluded, but denied the writ because St. Clair failed to prove with certainty the amount owed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of R.C. 709.19 governs payments for pre-2002 annexations excluded in 2016? | St. Clair: current R.C. 709.19 (post-H.B. 233) applies; payment duty ripens upon exclusion. | Hamilton: S.B. 5 uncodified §3 makes pre-2002 annexations governed by pre-S.B.5 law, so no duty upon 2016 exclusion. | Current R.C. 709.19 applies; S.B.5 §3 governs only S.B.5 provisions and is not controlling here. |
| Does applying current R.C. 709.19 create an unconstitutional retroactive law? | St. Clair: statute applies prospectively to events (exclusion) after H.B. 233—no retroactivity problem. | Hamilton: applying new statute to pre-2002 annexations is retroactive and unconstitutional. | No retroactivity problem; duty ripened after H.B. 233 when exclusion occurred, so prospective application. |
| Is there a 12-year limitation that bars payment when exclusion occurs >12 years after annexation? | St. Clair: the statute imposes payments upon exclusion regardless of elapsed time. | Hamilton: payments barred unless exclusion occurs within 12 years of annexation based on payment schedule structure. | Court: statute’s payment percentages apply after exclusion regardless of time elapsed; 12-year schedule limits duration of payments, not the triggering of duty. |
| Has St. Clair shown a clear legal right to mandamus relief (including amount owed)? | St. Clair: yes, R.C. 709.19 gives a clear right; city must calculate and pay lost revenue. | Hamilton: even if duty exists, St. Clair has not proven the amount owed; factual uncertainties preclude mandamus. | Denied. Court found duty exists but St. Clair failed to establish the amount with the certainty required for mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sugarcreek Twp. v. Centerville, 979 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio 2012) (state policy encourages municipal annexation)
- Maynard v. Eaton Corp., 895 N.E.2d 145 (Ohio 2008) (uncodified statutory language is binding law)
- State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 31 N.E.3d 608 (Ohio 2014) (mandamus unsuited to resolving complex disputed factual issues)
- State ex rel. Tempesta v. Warren, 946 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio 2011) (amount demanded must be established with certainty in mandamus seeking payment)
- State ex rel. Fenske v. McGovern, 464 N.E.2d 525 (Ohio 1984) (mandamus may compel payment of money due a public employee where right and amount are clear)
- Quality Ready Mix, Inc. v. Mamone, 520 N.E.2d 193 (Ohio 1988) (doctrine of legal impossibility not applied to statutory duties)
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 883 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio 2008) (courts should not second-guess legislative policy choices)