RUMPKE SANITARY LANDFILL, INC., APPELLEE, v. THE STATE OF OHIO; COLERAIN TOWNSHIP ET AL., APPELLANTS.
No. 2009-2004
Supreme Court of Ohio
December 16, 2010
128 Ohio St.3d 41, 2010-Ohio-6037
O‘DONNELL, J.
O‘DONNELL, J.
{11} Colerain Township and its trustees appeal from a decision of the First District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court judgment denying Colerain‘s motion to intervene in an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief filed by Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc., against the state of Ohio, denying the state‘s motion to dismiss that action for failure to join Colerain, declaring the General Assembly‘s amendments to
{12} The issue presented on this appeal is whether a township is a necessary party to a declaratory-judgment action challenging an enactment of the General Assembly as violating the one-subject rule of the Ohio Constitution.
{13} Although Colerain Township may have a practical interest in the outcome of Rumpke‘s declaratory-judgment action, a township has no legal interest in the General Assembly‘s authority to enact laws and therefore is not a necessary party to a declaratory-judgment action challenging legislation as violating the one-subject rule. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Facts and Procedural History
{14} Rumpke and its subsidiaries own and operate a sanitary landfill located in Colerain Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. In 2006, Rumpke sought to expand its operation and filed an application to change township zoning, which Colerain denied. Thereafter, Rumpke sued Colerain in the common pleas court, asserting that because it is a public utility, it is not subject to the township‘s zoning restrictions.
{15} During the pendency of that action, the 127th General Assembly passed, and the governor signed, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 562, an appropriations bill establishing the biennial budget for the state of Ohio for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. In addition to making capital and other appropriations for the operation of state programs, the bill amended more than 300 sections of the Revised Code, including
{16} However, on September 2, 2008, before the amendments to those sections became effective, Rumpke filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the state, asserting that the amendments to
{17} On October 3, 2008, the common pleas court denied the motions filed by Colerain and the state and ordered that the amendments to
{18} On appeal by the state and Colerain, the appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Colerain‘s motion to intervene, did not err in denying the state‘s motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party, and properly determined that the amendments to
{19} On Colerain‘s appeal to this court, we accepted discretionary review of the following proposition of law: “A township is an interested and necessary party to a constitutional challenge brought by a property owner within the township‘s jurisdiction to a law passed by the General Assembly that directly affects the township‘s police powers over that owner‘s property and pending litigation.” Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. State, 124 Ohio St.3d 1442, 2010-Ohio-188, 920 N.E.2d 373.
{110} Colerain contends that it is an interested and necessary party required to be joined in Rumpke‘s declaratory-judgment action pursuant to
{111} Alternatively, Colerain contends that even if it is not a necessary party pursuant to
{12} Rumpke, on the other hand, contends that Colerain is not a necessary party to its one-subject-rule challenge to Am.Sub.H.B. No. 562, because it is not challenging Colerain‘s zoning powers or any statute that the township is charged with enforcing, but rather is challenging the General Assembly‘s power to enact the appropriations bill in violation of the one-subject rule. Accordingly, Rumpke asserts that Colerain had no legally protectable interest in defending the legisla-
{13} Thus, we are called upon to decide whether a township is a necessary party to a constitutional challenge to an enactment of the General Assembly alleging a violation of the one-subject rule of the Ohio Constitution if the outcome may affect township police powers over landowners and pending litigation.
Necessary Party Analysis
{14}
{15} Thus, whether a nonparty is a necessary party to a declaratory-judgment action depends upon whether that nonparty has a legally protectable interest in rights that are the subject matter of the action. We have considered whether the inclusion of a nonparty is necessary to the rendition of a declaratory judgment in several cases. In Driscoll, for example, we examined whether landowners adjacent to a parcel of property owned by a real estate development partnership were necessary parties to a declaratory-judgment action brought by the partnership challenging the constitutionality of township zoning as it applied to the parcel. We held that although the surrounding property owners may have had a practical interest in the outcome of the action—whether the partnership could construct apartment buildings on its property—they were not necessary parties to the partnership‘s declaratory-judgment action, because they had no legal interest in a determination of the constitutionality of the township‘s zoning resolution as applied to that property. 42 Ohio St.2d at 273, 71 O.O.2d 247, 328 N.E.2d 395.
{17} Similarly, in Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 N.E.2d 478, we examined whether several affected communities needed to join the director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources as a party to a declaratory-judgment action averring that the city of Akron had violated the communities’ riparian rights by diverting water from the Cuyahoga River without a permit to do so. We held that because the director is charged with the exclusive statutory duty to issue and enforce water-diversion permits, the director was a necessary party to the claim. Id. at ¶ 100.
{18} And recently, in Natl. Solid Wastes Mgt. Assn. v. Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Mgt. Dist., 124 Ohio St.3d 197, 2009-Ohio-6765, 920 N.E.2d 978, we held that the director of environmental protection was not a necessary party to a declaratory-judgment action challenging local rules adopted by a solid-waste-management district, because the director had no statutory authority to enforce those rules.
{19} Thus, our resolution of the present case depends upon whether Colerain has a legally protectable interest in rights that are the subject of Rumpke‘s one-subject-rule challenge to the appropriations bill enacted by the General Assembly.
The One-Subject Rule
{20} In State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 495, 715 N.E.2d 1062, we explained that the one-subject rule was added to our Constitution in 1851 as a means of placing “concrete limits on the power of the General Assembly to proceed however it saw fit in the enactment of legislation.” Specifically, “[t]he primary and universally recognized purpose of [the one-subject rule] is to prevent logrolling* * * the practice of several minorities combining their several proposals as different provisions of a single bill and thus consolidating their votes so that a majority is obtained for the omnibus bill where perhaps no single proposal of each minority could have obtained majority approval separately.” State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 141, 142-143, 11 OBR 436, 464 N.E.2d 153, quoting 1A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction (4th Ed.1972), Section 17.01. The one-subject rule there-
{21} Because a township has no legally protectable interest in the authority of the General Assembly to enact a bill, a township is not a necessary party to a constitutional challenge to the bill premised on a violation of the one-subject rule of the Ohio Constitution. Accordingly, Colerain is not a necessary party to Rumpke‘s declaratory-judgment action.
{22} Colerain‘s remaining argument, that it should have been allowed to intervene in Rumpke‘s action as of right pursuant to
{123}
Conclusion
{125} Admittedly, Colerain‘s interest in its pending litigation with Rumpke may be practically affected by Rumpke‘s declaratory-judgment action against the state, but Colerain has no legal interest in the authority of the General Assembly to enact amendments to
Judgment affirmed.
PFEIFER, O‘CONNOR, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.
BROWN, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON and CUPP, JJ., dissent.
CUPP, J., dissenting.
{26} Because I disagree with the majority‘s conclusion that Colerain Township has no “legal interest” in this declaratory-judgment action and could not be joined as a party defendant in Rumpke‘s action against the state, I must dissent. The township should have been joined as a party in this declaratory-judgment action under
{127} This case began when Rumpke sued to invalidate the General Assembly‘s amendment to
{28}
“Except as otherwise provided in division (B) or (C) or this section, sections
519.02 to519.25 of the Revised Code confer no power on any board of township trustees or board of zoning appeals in respect to the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, maintenance, removal, use, or enlargement of any buildings or structures of any public utility or railroad, whether publicly or privately owned, or the use of land by any public utility or railroad, for the operation of its business.” Sub.S.B. No. 107, 151 Ohio Laws, Part I, 475.
{30} Just prior to the effective date of the amended version of
{131} The township does not seek to intervene in this matter merely because it claims an abstract interest in Rumpke‘s constitutional challenge to amended
{133} The presence of the same issues in both the intervention and zoning cases, and the interdependence of those issues on the two cases, substantiates the township‘s legal interest in this intervention case consistently with the joinder rule of
{34} The township has sufficiently demonstrated that its absence from the intervention case impairs its ability to protect its interest in maintaining its authority to regulate, control, and enforce land use within its boundaries. This is particularly true because it appears that Rumpke initiated the present case as a new and separate case from the already pending zoning action purposefully as a way to litigate the public-utility issue without the township‘s opposing participation and as a way to gain a strategic advantage in the zoning case. Despite the differing legal theories, these two cases involve related aspects of the same issues. Consequently, the township should be permitted to join as a party to assert its important legal interest in the present case ultimately challenging whether Rumpke is a public utility.
{135} Colerain Township‘s interest in this case is clearly different from the interest of townships generally. The presence and interdependence of the same issues in both the preexisting zoning case and this intervention case give Colerain Township a specific, unique interest in the intervention case that is distinguishable from that of other township within the state. Permitting the township to intervene in this case would create no “unmanageable litigation,” as the majority asserts. Rather, it would simply permit an entity that has a legal interest that would be affected in the proceedings to protect that interest.
{136} For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
BROWN, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.