State v. Calhoun
2021 Ohio 2101
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- The City of Shaker Heights sued Erica Calhoun and Michael Davie for unpaid municipal income taxes for 2011–2016, alleging Davie lived in the city and did not file returns or remit wages subject to tax.
- The city voluntarily dismissed its original complaint, then refiled seeking approximately $5,144 plus penalties and interest; the city later dismissed the 2013 claim and judgment was entered for $3,800 for tax years 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 plus statutory interest and costs.
- The city supported its motion for summary judgment with an RITA paralegal affidavit, federal tax returns, and Davie’s admissions; Davie opposed and moved for summary judgment raising multiple defenses.
- Davie’s defenses challenged: (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies / lack of notice under R.C. 718.90 and local ordinance (due process); (2) the three‑year statute of limitations; (3) the trial court’s alleged sua sponte rulings; and (4) denial of a protective order (raised on co‑defendant’s behalf).
- The trial court granted the city’s summary judgment as to Davie, holding R.C. 718.90 did not apply, the statute of limitations had not run because Davie had not filed returns, and the city could pursue judicial collection without exhausting an administrative process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether city had to use R.C. 718.90 administrative process before suing (due process) | City: may sue to collect taxes; R.C. 718.90 inapplicable | Davie: city must exhaust administrative procedure and provide statutory notice under R.C. 718.90 and ordinance | Held: R.C. 718.90 applies only to net‑profit filers; city was not required to pursue administrative remedies and Davie’s due‑process claim fails |
| 2. Whether the three‑year statute of limitations barred suit | City: limitations not triggered because no municipal returns were filed | Davie: suit is time‑barred by three‑year rule | Held: limitations not begun where no return filed; suit timely |
| 3. Whether trial court improperly entered summary judgment sua sponte | City: court decided issues presented; no sua sponte error | Davie: court sua sponte ruled administrative process unnecessary | Held: issue was raised by Davie; no improper sua sponte action |
| 4. Whether court abused discretion by denying a protective order | City: Davie lacks standing; he did not move for protective order | Davie: complains about denial affecting rights | Held: Davie lacked standing to complain about Calhoun’s motion and showed no prejudice; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., Inc., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (sets out summary‑judgment standard in Ohio)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary‑judgment grant reviewed de novo)
- Basic Distrib. Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation, 94 Ohio St.3d 287 (2002) (no exhaustion required where judicial remedy is separate from administrative process)
- Nielsen v. Ford Motor Co., 113 Ohio App.3d 495 (1996) (discusses limits of administrative exhaustion principles)
- Springfield v. Hicks, 48 Ohio App.3d 147 (1988) (statute of limitations does not run where no return filed)
- Gibson v. Levin, 119 Ohio St.3d 517 (2008) (same principle regarding limitations when no return filed)