Case Title: State ex rel. Hills Communities, Inc. v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2001-Ohio-101

Docket Number: 20002172

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Hills Communities, Inc. v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections, 91 Ohio St.3d 
465, 2001-Ohio-101.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HILLS COMMUNITIES, INC., APPELLANT, v. CLERMONT 
COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hills Communities, Inc. v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 465.] 
Zoning — Writ of prohibition sought to prevent board of elections from 
submitting zoning amendment to township electors at November 7, 2000 
election – Writ denied by court of appeals on October 18 — Zoning 
amendment rejected by voters at November 7 election — Court of 
appeals’ denial of writ not appealed until fifty-seven days after judgment 
— Appeal dismissed due to laches and mootness. 
(No. 00-2172 — Submitted April 25, 2001 — Decided May 23, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clermont County, No. 2000CA-09-072. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Hills Communities, Inc. (“Hills”), is the 
prospective developer of 26.48 acres of land in Pierce Township, Clermont 
County, Ohio.  Hills, which had entered into an agreement to purchase the 
property, applied to amend the zoning for the property from RA (Residence A) to 
PUD-R (Planned Unit Development—Residential) in order to proceed with its 
development.  On June 20, 2000, the Pierce Township Board of Trustees adopted 
Resolution No. 00-006, approving Hills’s application for change of zoning and 
also approving its preliminary development plan for the property subject to 
certain conditions. 
 
In July 2000, a petition was submitted to the Clerk of Pierce Township in 
which the petitioners demanded that Resolution No. 00-006 be submitted to the 
township electors for their approval or rejection at the November 7, 2000 general 
election.  In August 2000, Hills filed a written protest with appellee, Clermont 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
County Board of Elections, requesting that the board invalidate the referendum 
petition and not submit the zoning change to the township voters.  Hills claimed 
that the petition failed to meet the requirements of R.C. 519.12(H) because it did 
not contain a full and correct title of the zoning amendment resolution and 
because the brief summary of the resolution  in the petition was inaccurate, 
ambiguous, and misleading, and contained material omissions. 
 
After a hearing on the protest was held on September 6, the board denied 
Hills’s protest, certified the sufficiency and validity of the referendum petition, 
and ordered that the zoning amendment be placed on the ballot for the November 
7, 2000 election. 
 
On September 14, 2000, Hills filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals 
for Clermont County for a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections 
from submitting the zoning amendment to the township electors at the November 
7 election.  After the board filed an answer and the parties filed briefs, the court of 
appeals denied the writ on October 18.  At the November 7 election, the voters 
rejected the zoning amendment. 
 
On December 4, i.e., forty-seven days after the court of appeals’ judgment 
and twenty-seven days after the November 7 election, Hills appealed the court of 
appeals’ judgment. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
The board contends that laches and mootness require that the judgment of 
the court of appeals remain undisturbed.  For the following reasons, we agree and 
dismiss the appeal. 
 
Hills did not act with the diligence and promptness required in this 
election case.  “It is well established that in election-related matters, extreme 
diligence and promptness are required.”  State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum 
of Ordinance No. 3543-00 v. White (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 212, 214, 736 N.E.2d 
873, 875.  If a party seeking extraordinary relief in an election-related matter fails 
January Term, 2001 
3 
to exercise the requisite diligence, laches may bar the action.  State ex rel. Ascani 
v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 490, 493, 700 N.E.2d 1234, 
1236. 
 
Even though Hills expressly requested an “expedited consideration” of its 
protest before the board of elections, Hills delayed forty-seven days from the 
court of appeals’ judgment—which is after the November 7 election—to file its 
notice of appeal, and it delayed another forty-six days after the record was 
transmitted to file its merit brief.  Hills also does not request expedited treatment 
of this appeal.  By contrast, appellants in comparable cases have acted to ensure 
an expedited determination of their appeals.  Cf. State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 224, 685 N.E.2d 754 (appellants in election case filed 
motions for expedited briefing schedule and review of appeal, filed their merit 
brief within seven days of their notice of appeal, and filed their reply brief within 
five days of appellee’s merit brief, permitting the court to enter judgment in 
election-related appeal before November 1997 general election); State ex rel. 
Arnett v. Winemiller (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 255, 685 N.E.2d 1219 (appellants in 
election case filed motions to expedite appeal and filed briefs in time for court to 
enter judgment before November 1997 general election).  Hills does not offer any 
argument justifying the lack of diligence, and its appellate brief consists of the 
same arguments raised in its August 2000 protest. 
 
Moreover, despite Hills’s claims to the contrary, the board was not 
precluded from raising the laches issue in this appeal by not raising it in the court 
of appeals.  In election cases, laches is not an affirmative defense that must be 
raised in order to avoid waiver.  See State ex rel. Manos v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 562, 564, 701 N.E.2d 371, 373.  In fact, the board 
could not raise the issue of Hills’s laches in prosecuting this appeal until Hills 
appealed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Furthermore, in addition to laches, because Hills requested that the zoning 
amendment resolution not be submitted to township electors at the November 7 
election, and that election has now passed, this appeal is moot.  As we have 
repeatedly held, “prohibition may issue to prevent the placement of names or 
issues on a ballot even though a protest hearing has been completed, as long as 
the election has not yet been held.”  (Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. Crossman 
Communities of Ohio, Inc. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 
132, 136, 717 N.E.2d 1091, 1095; Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (1996), 
77 Ohio St.3d 35, 37, 671 N.E.2d 1, 3; State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 289, 291, 649 N.E.2d 1205, 1207. 
 
When the election has passed, as it has here, the action for extraordinary 
relief or an appeal from a judgment in the extraordinary-writ action is moot.  See 
State ex rel. Bona v. Orange (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771, 773-
774, and cases cited therein; see, also, State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 61, 531 N.E.2d 713, 715, fn. 1.  Hills’s 
attempts to distinguish these cases on the basis that they are either not prohibition 
cases or are not appeals of cases originating in courts of appeals are not 
persuasive.  Cf., e.g., State ex rel. Snyder v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections (1946), 
146 Ohio St. 556, 33 O.O. 43, 67 N.E.2d 322 (appeal from denial or writ of 
prohibition to prevent referendum election became moot when special election 
was held).  Resolving the merits of this appeal even though the election has now 
passed would circumvent the precept that “an election result will not  be disturbed 
unless the evidence establishes that the result was contrary to the will of the 
electorate.”  In re Election Contest of Democratic Primary Election Held May 4, 
1999 for Clerk, Youngstown Mun. Court (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 258, 262, 725 
N.E.2d 271, 275. 
 
This is also not a case that is capable of repetition yet evading review.  If 
Hills had pursued its appeal with the requisite diligence, the merits of this appeal 
January Term, 2001 
5 
would not necessarily have evaded review.  Bona, 85 Ohio St.3d at 21-22, 706 
N.E.2d at 774. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal due to laches and 
mootness. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Manley, Burke & Lipton, Gary E. Powell and Rhonda S. Frey, for 
appellant. 
 
Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary Lynn 
Birck, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________