Title: Taylor v. London

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Taylor v. London, 88 Ohio St.3d 137, 2000-Ohio-278.] 
 
 
 
 
 
TAYLOR ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF LONDON, APPELLEE, ET AL. 
[Cite as Taylor v. London (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 137.] 
Municipal corporations — Annexation — Enactment of emergency legislation 
accepting an application for annexation of real estate is not prohibited by 
R.C. 709.10 or Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio Constitution — Emergency 
legislation adopted by municipality not subject to referendum. 
1. 
The enactment of emergency legislation by a municipality accepting an 
application for annexation of real estate is not prohibited by R.C. 709.10 or 
Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. 
2. 
In accordance with R.C. 731.29 and 731.30, emergency legislation adopted 
by a municipality is not subject to referendum. 
(No. 99-411 — Submitted November 17, 1999 — Decided March 1, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA98-06-024. 
 
On March 27, 1998, Janice E. and Robert V. Taylor, appellants, filed a 
complaint in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas naming as defendant the 
city of London, appellee herein.1  Appellants based their complaint on the 
following allegations. 
 
On July 7, 1997, the Madison County Board of Commissioners 
(“commissioners”) held a hearing and thereafter approved a petition for annexation 
 
 
2
of approximately five hundred twenty-nine acres in Union and Deercreek 
Townships (“Parcel A”) to the city of London.  In addition, on August 11, 1997, 
the commissioners held a hearing and also subsequently approved a petition for 
annexation of approximately two hundred sixty acres in Union Township (“Parcel 
B”) to the city of London.  Following certification to the city auditor, the London 
City Council (“city council”) passed two ordinances, Ordinance Nos. 230-97 
(Parcel A) and 229-97 (Parcel B), accepting both applications for annexation. 
 
On February 17, 1998, appellants filed referendum petitions, requesting that, 
at the next general election, Ordinance Nos. 230-97 and 229-97 be placed on the 
ballot for approval or rejection by the city electorate.2  In response to the petitions, 
city council, on February 19, 1998, passed four emergency ordinances.  Two of the 
enacted emergency ordinances repealed Ordinance Nos. 230-97 and 229-97.  The 
other two emergency ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 136-98 and 138-98) accepted the 
applications for annexation of each parcel to the city of London.3  In the 
emergency ordinances, city council set forth its reasons for the passage of the 
legislation and specifically noted that the legislation was “for the immediate 
preservation of the public peace, health and safety of the inhabitants of the City of 
London.” 
 
In their complaint, appellants sought a declaration that the emergency 
ordinances accepting the annexation applications were contrary to law and 
 
 
3
therefore void.  Appellants alleged that R.C. 709.10 and Section 1f, Article II of 
the Ohio Constitution “prohibit the passage as an emergency measure of an 
ordinance purporting to accept an annexation.”  On April 24, 1998, appellee filed a 
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon 
which relief could be granted. 
 
The trial court granted appellee’s motion and dismissed the complaint.  
Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  The 
court of appeals, however, did not address appellants’ specific contentions 
concerning the application of R.C. 709.10 and Section 1f, Article II.  Rather, the 
court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that 
appellants’ claims were moot. 
 
This cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a 
discretionary appeal. 
__________________ 
 
Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson & Newman, Robert E. Albright and 
Jill S. Tangeman, for appellants. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Bruce L. Ingram; and Monte C. 
White, London Law Director, for appellee. 
 
Barry M. Byron, Stephen L. Byron and John Gotherman, urging affirmance 
for amicus curiae Ohio Municipal League. 
 
 
4
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and John F. Marsh, urging affirmance for 
amici curiae MTB Corp., Jerry Alcott, Norman Dunham, and DC Engineering & 
Development Ltd. 
__________________ 
 
DOUGLAS, J.  The issue before us is whether city council had the authority 
to enact emergency legislation accepting the applications for annexations of the 
two parcels of land to the city of London.  For the reasons that follow, we answer 
this question in the affirmative. 
 
As a threshold matter, it is clear that we must, as a matter of law, accept all 
of the allegations of appellants’ complaint as true.  Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. 
(1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753, 756.  Further, in O’Brien v. Univ. 
Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 
N.E.2d 753, syllabus, we held: 
 
“In order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted (Civ.R.12(B)(6)), it must appear beyond doubt from 
the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery.” 
 
This case involves the annexation of land to a municipal corporation upon 
petition by a majority of the owners of real estate in the territory proposed for 
annexation.  Ohio’s statutory procedure for annexation is set forth in R.C. Chapter 
709. 
 
 
5
 
R.C. 709.02 provides that owners of real estate adjacent to a municipal 
corporation may apply for such territory to be annexed by filing a petition with the 
board of county commissioners of the county in which the territory is located.  Not 
less than sixty days after a petition for annexation is filed with the commissioners, 
the commissioners must hold a public hearing.  R.C. 709.031 and 709.032. 
 
Following the evidentiary hearing, the commissioners must approve or deny 
the petition based upon factors contained in R.C. 709.033.4  If the petition is 
approved, the commissioners must deliver the petition and a certified transcript of 
the proceedings to the auditor or clerk of the municipal corporation.  R.C. 709.033.  
Thereafter, the auditor or clerk is required to present the petition and the transcript 
to the legislative authority of the municipal corporation.  R.C. 709.04.  The 
legislative authority then accepts or rejects the application for annexation by 
resolution or ordinance.  Id. 
 
R.C. 709.07(A) provides that a person may file a petition in the court of 
common pleas for an injunction preventing the auditor or clerk from presenting the 
annexation petition and other papers to the legislative authority.  The trial court 
may issue an injunction if the petitioner sets forth facts sufficient to demonstrate 
that, among other things, an error existed in the proceedings before the 
commissioners or that their decision was unreasonable or unlawful. 
 
 
6
 
The court of appeals did not address appellants’ contentions that the 
emergency ordinances passed by city council on February 19, 1998 were contrary 
to law and therefore void.  Instead, the court of appeals, relying on Garverick v. 
Hoffman (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 74, 52 O.O.2d 371, 262 N.E.2d 695, and State ex 
rel. Springfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Davis (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 108, 2 OBR 
658, 443 N.E.2d 166, held that appellants’ contentions were moot because they 
failed to seek an injunction prior to the passage of the emergency ordinances. 
 
However, we believe that, given the procedural posture of the case at bar, 
the court of appeals’ reliance on Garverick and Davis was misplaced.  In both 
Garverick and Davis, this court noted that the parties challenging the legislation at 
issue accepting annexation failed to take advantage of available remedies to stay 
proceedings before the legislation was passed.  Thus, because the parties in 
Garverick and Davis did not avail themselves of such remedies, any subsequent 
challenge seeking to enjoin the enacted legislation was moot.5 
 
However, the situation in the case at bar is substantially different from what 
occurred in both Garverick and Davis.  Unlike the parties in Garverick or Davis, 
here, appellants clearly did not have an opportunity to seek an injunction prior to 
the adoption of the ordinance accepting annexation.  This is true because the act of 
accepting the annexation by emergency ordinance is the very action that appellants 
are challenging. 
 
 
7
 
Appellants contend that R.C. 709.10 and Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio 
Constitution prohibit a municipality from accepting annexation applications 
through passage of emergency legislation.  R.C. 709.10 sets forth the date that 
annexation takes effect after an ordinance accepting annexation is passed.  
Appellants contend that there is an irreconcilable conflict between R.C. 709.10 and 
language in R.C. 731.30 regarding the effective date of an emergency ordinance. 
 
R.C. 709.10 provides that “annexation shall become effective thirty days 
after the passage of the resolution or ordinance * * * accepting annexation, 
provided that if the resolution or ordinance is subjected to a referendum, the 
annexation, if approved by the electors, shall become effective thirty days after 
such approval.”  R.C. 731.30 provides that “emergency ordinances * * * shall go 
into immediate effect.” 
 
Appellants claim that, because R.C. 709.10 expressly provides for a thirty-
day delay between the date that an annexation ordinance is passed and the date that 
the annexation goes into effect, municipalities are prohibited from approving 
annexation applications by emergency ordinances because such legislation takes 
effect immediately in accordance with R.C. 731.30.  In this regard, appellants 
contend that the General Assembly intended that R.C. 709.10 prohibit 
municipalities from circumventing referendums by accepting annexation 
 
 
8
applications by emergency ordinances.  In support of their position, appellants rely 
on Tamele v. Brinkman (1972), 30 Ohio Misc. 49, 59 O.O.2d 292, 284 N.E.2d 210. 
 
In Tamele, the court determined that a conflict existed between R.C. 709.10 
and 731.30 with respect to the effective date of the ordinance.  The court 
determined that the conflict was irreconcilable and that R.C. 709.10, as a special 
provision relating to annexation, prevailed over R.C. 731.30, a general provision 
relating to ordinances.  Thus, the court in Tamele held that R.C. 709.10 creates an 
exception to R.C. 731.30 and prevents municipalities from accepting annexation 
petitions by means of emergency ordinances. 
 
However, we agree with appellee that the Tamele court erred in finding that 
R.C. 709.10 and 731.30 are irreconcilable.  We note that R.C. 1.51 provides that, 
when possible, courts should construe conflicting provisions so that effect is given 
to both.  We find that R.C. 709.10 and 731.30 can coexist, i.e., an emergency 
ordinance accepting annexation becomes effective immediately in accordance with 
R.C. 731.30 but citizens living in the area annexed do not secure rights and 
privileges until thirty days thereafter in accordance with R.C. 709.10. 
 
Appellants contend that giving effect to both statutes would lead to absurd 
results because the sole reason that the General Assembly included the language in 
R.C. 709.10 providing for a thirty-day delay in the effectiveness of annexations 
was to provide time for filing referendum petitions.  Appellants, however, overlook 
 
 
9
the fact that R.C. 709.10 also provides for a thirty-day delay in the effectiveness of 
an annexation if the referendum is exercised and the ordinance is accepted.  
Specifically, R.C. 709.10 provides that “if the resolution or ordinance is subjected 
to a referendum, the annexation, if approved by the electors, shall become effective 
thirty days after such approval.”  If the delay were intended simply to allow time 
for filing a referendum petition then there would be no need for a thirty-day delay 
once the voters approved the annexation. 
 
Therefore, we believe that the General Assembly had additional reasons for 
providing for a thirty-day delay in the effectiveness of annexations.  We believe 
that the delay set forth in R.C. 709.10 provides time for the finalization of the 
annexation, see R.C. 709.06,6 and also allows time for the municipality to arrange 
for extension of its services to the newly annexed area, e.g., garbage collection, 
police patrol, fire protection, water, and sewer. 
 
If the General Assembly had intended, as appellants suggest, to prohibit 
municipalities from passing annexation applications by means of emergency 
ordinances, it would have stated so in the statutory procedures for annexation.  
However, no such language exists in R.C. 709.10, or anywhere in R.C. Chapter 
709. 
 
Appellants also contend that Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio Constitution 
supports their position.  In this regard, appellants argue that R.C. 709.10 must be 
 
 
10
interpreted as an exception to R.C. 731.30 to preserve the right of referendum.  
Again, we disagree.  Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio Constitution provides: 
 
“The initiative and referendum powers are hereby reserved to the people of 
each municipality on all questions which such municipalities may now or hereafter 
be authorized by law to control by legislative action; such powers shall be 
exercised in the manner now or hereafter provided by law.” 
 
Although Section 1f, Article II expressly provides residents of a 
municipality with the power to subject ordinances to referendum, the constitutional 
section also explicitly states that “such powers shall be exercised in the manner 
now or hereafter provided by law.”  (Emphasis added.)  To that end, R.C. 731.29 
provides that “[a]ny ordinance or other measure passed by the legislative authority 
of a municipal corporation shall be subject to the referendum except as provided by 
section 731.30 of the Revised Code.”  Further, R.C. 731.30 states that “emergency 
ordinances or measures necessary for the immediate preservation of the public 
peace, health, or safety in such municipal corporation, shall go into immediate 
effect.”  (Emphasis added.)  Clearly, R.C. 731.29 and 731.30, which preclude 
referendum of properly adopted emergency legislation, do not contravene the 
rights afforded to citizens under Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. 
 
Accordingly, we hold that the enactment of emergency legislation by a 
municipality accepting an application for annexation of real estate is not prohibited 
 
 
11
by R.C. 709.10 or Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.  Moreover, in 
accordance with R.C. 731.29 and 731.30, emergency legislation adopted by a 
municipality is not subject to referendum. 
 
For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court properly granted 
appellee’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed appellants’ complaint.  
Therefore, albeit for different reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
FOOTNOTES: 
 
1. 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, was named as a 
party defendant pursuant to R.C. 2721.12 but was dismissed as a party after the 
parties stipulated that the state had no interest or stake in the litigation. 
 
2. 
Appellants were members of the referendum committee and are 
therefore regarded as having filed the petition.  R.C. 731.34. 
 
3. 
Appellants concede that municipalities are not prohibited from 
circumventing a referendum by “passing at one session after the filing of the 
referendum petition two consecutive emergency ordinances, one to repeal the 
ordinance under referendum and the other to re-enact substantially the same 
 
 
12
ordinance as repealed; and it can do that although the sole purpose of council in 
passing the two new ordinances is to prevent a vote by the electorate on the 
legislation contained in the ordinance with respect to which the referendum 
petition was filed.”  State ex rel. Tester v. Ottawa Cty. Bd. of Elections (1962), 174 
Ohio St. 15, 21 O.O.2d 107, 185 N.E.2d 762, syllabus. 
 
Moreover, the duty and responsibility of determining the emergency are 
placed in the council of a municipality and “[i]f there was in fact no emergency or 
if the reasons given for such necessity are not valid reasons, the voters have an 
opportunity to take appropriate action in the subsequent election of their 
representatives.  However, the existence of an emergency or the soundness of such 
reasons is subject to review only by the voters at such a subsequent election of 
their representatives.  They are not subject to review by the courts.”  State ex rel. 
Fostoria v. King (1950), 154 Ohio St. 213, 221, 43 O.O. 1, 4-5, 94 N.E.2d 697, 
701, and paragraph four of the syllabus.  As noted in Fostoria, the statutory 
provisions safeguard referendum rights by requiring substantially more than a 
majority vote to enact emergency legislation.  Id. at 220, 43 O.O. at 4, 94 N.E.2d at 
701. 
 
4. 
R.C. 709.033 provides: 
 
“After the hearing on a petition to annex, the board of county commissioners 
shall enter an order upon its journal allowing the annexation if it finds that: 
 
 
13
 
“(A) The petition contains all matter required in section 709.02 of the 
Revised Code. 
 
“(B) Notice has been published as required by section 709.031 of the 
Revised Code. 
 
“(C) The persons whose names are subscribed to the petition are owners of 
real estate located in the territory in the petition, and as of the time the petition was 
filed with the board of county commissioners the number of valid signatures on the 
petition constituted a majority of the owners of real estate in the territory proposed 
to be annexed. 
 
“(D) The municipal corporation to which the territory is proposed to be 
annexed has complied with division (B) of section 709.031 of the Revised Code. 
 
“(E) The territory included in the annexation petition is not unreasonably 
large; the map or plat is accurate; and the general good of the territory sought to be 
annexed will be served if the annexation petition is granted.” 
 
5. 
In Garverick this court stated that “every wrong decision, even by an 
administrative body, is not void as being beyond the so-called jurisdiction of the 
tribunal, even though voidable by proper judicial process.  Logic compels the 
conclusion that this is true where a specifically prescribed course of immediate 
judicial review or judicial examination is provided within the same act, for the 
relief of those persons claimed to be aggrieved by illegal or improper action of an 
 
 
14
administrative tribunal, especially where such persons fail to take advantage of the 
specific judicial review or examination so provided.  [Citation omitted.]  That is 
the situation which prevailed in this case, and was the basis for the conclusion by 
the Court of Appeals that the case is moot.  We agree with that conclusion.”  Id., 
23 Ohio St.2d at 79, 52 O.O.2d at 374, 262 N.E.2d at 699. 
 
In Davis this court stated: 
 
“We wish to emphasize that subsequent to the final order of the court of 
common pleas on April 21, 1982, until city council’s enactment of the annexation 
ordinance on June 28, 1982, relators possessed several options.  First, under Civ.R. 
62(B), a stay was available upon request from the court of common pleas which 
would have prevented this cause from becoming moot.  Second, a timely stay under 
the provisions of App.R. 7 could have been sought from the court of appeals.  
Neither course, however, was pursued despite the abundance of precedent which 
compels us to agree with the court of appeals that this action was rendered moot on 
June 28, 1982, the date city council adopted Ordinance No. 415-1982, accepting 
the annexation.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Id., 2 Ohio St.3d at 111, 2 OBR at 661, 443 
N.E.2d at 168-169. 
 
6. 
R.C. 709.06 provides: 
 
“If the resolution or ordinance required by section 709.04 of the Revised 
Code is an acceptance of the proposed annexation, the auditor or clerk of the 
 
 
15
municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed shall make three copies, 
containing the petition, the map or plat accompanying the petition, a transcript of 
the proceedings of the board of county commissioners, and resolutions and 
ordinances in relation to the annexation, with a certificate to each copy that it is 
correct.  Such certificate shall be signed by the auditor or clerk in his official 
capacity, and shall be authenticated by the seal of the municipal corporation if 
there is any.  The auditor or clerk shall forthwith deliver one such copy to the 
county auditor and one such copy to the county recorder, who shall make a record 
thereof in the proper book of records and file and preserve it.  The other copy shall 
be forwarded by the auditor or clerk to the secretary of state.” 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I disagree with the majority’s 
conclusion that property may be annexed through “emergency” legislation not 
subject to a referendum.  I believe that allowing such a process deprives Ohio 
citizens of their right to a referendum provided under Section 1f, Article II of the 
Ohio Constitution. 
 
This case presents a clear example of how such an interpretation can lead to 
an abuse of this important right.  In this case, the Board of Commissioners of 
Madison County had approved two petitions annexing land to the city of London 
and the London City Counsel passed two ordinances accepting the annexations.  
 
 
16
Referendum petitions were timely filed.  The city of London then repealed the two 
annexation ordinances, and passed them again as “emergency legislation,” thereby 
circumventing the referendum attempt.  It is difficult for me to imagine a more 
deliberate attempt to thwart a constitutional right.  I fear that the majority’s 
approval of this procedure will provide a road map to each municipality in the 
future to avoid referendums when they have been filed, as we set forth no 
guidelines or exceptions for allowing such circumvention but rather grant 
wholesale approval to the emergency process. 
 
I believe that R.C. 709.10, as a special provision relating to annexation, 
clearly controls over R.C. 731.30, a general provision relating to ordinances.  See 
Tamele v. Brinkman (1972), 30 Ohio Misc. 49, 53, 59 O.O.2d 292, 294, 284 
N.E.2d 210, 213.  Therefore, I believe that R.C. 709.10 allows voters time to vote 
on a referendum even in the face of emergency legislation to annex property.  
Navarre v. Massillon (Aug. 4, 1997), Stark App. No. 96-CA-0426, unreported. 
 
R.C. 731.30 allows emergency measures “necessary for the immediate 
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety * * *.”  (Emphasis added.)  
Appellee, the city of London, presented no evidence as to why an emergency 
ordinance was necessary, nor can I envision any scenario where it would be.  The 
process of land development and transfer are slow and deliberate events, 
 
 
17
sometimes taking years.  What scenario could possibly be such a dire emergency 
that it cannot wait an additional thirty days? 
 
R.C. 709.10 states: 
 
“The annexation shall become effective thirty days after the passage of the 
resolution or ordinance by the legislative authority of the municipal corporation 
accepting annexation, provided that if the resolution or ordinance is subjected to a 
referendum, the annexation, if approved by the electors, shall become effective 
thirty days after such approval.” 
 
There is nothing in this statute that speaks to emergency legislation.  To 
allow R.C. 731.30 to trump R.C. 709.10 violates Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio 
Constitution, which states: 
 
“The initiative and referendum powers are hereby reserved to the people of 
each municipality on all questions which such municipalities may now or hereafter 
be authorized by law to control by legislative action; such powers shall be 
exercised in the manner now or hereafter provided by law.” 
 
I do not believe that the General Assembly can use the phrase “provided by 
law” to circumvent or abrogate the constitutional right to referendum afforded in 
Section 1f, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.  Nor do I believe that the General 
Assembly intended R.C. 731.30 to be used to do so.  The right of referendum 
“reserved to the people of each municipality” is mere illusion if every time a 
 
 
18
referendum petition challenging an annexation is filed, a municipality can repeal 
the annexation legislation and pass identical “emergency” legislation, free from the 
reach of the referendum. 
 
As the court in Navarre stated: 
 
“[O]ne of the most inviolate rules of any court is to construe statutes in such 
a manner as to avoid foreclosing the rights of voters to make their will known to 
their legislators.”  Id. at 4. 
 
The majority forecloses that right by its judgment.  Therefore, I respectfully 
dissent. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.