Title: State ex rel. Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 
2009-Ohio-4980.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-4980 
THE STATE EX REL. MILLER DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS, L.L.C., ET AL. v. 
WOOD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. 
Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4980.] 
Prohibition — Writ to prevent a board of elections from submitting three 
township zoning resolutions to electorate — Substantial misstatement of 
acreage in referendum petition conveys a mistaken and confusing 
impression of the zoning resolutions — Writ granted in part and denied in 
part. 
(No. 2009-1573 ─ Submitted September 17, 2009 ─ Decided  
September 28, 2009.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of prohibition to 
prevent a board of elections from submitting three township zoning amendments 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
to the electorate at the November 3, 2009 general election.  Because relators have 
established their entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief for one of the 
three amendments, we grant the writ to prevent the referendum election on that 
amendment and deny the writ to prevent the referendum elections on the 
remaining amendments. 
Facts 
Zoning Amendments 
{¶ 2} Relators, Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. (“Miller”) and 
McCarthy Builders, Inc. (“McCarthy”), have options to purchase certain parcels 
of real estate located in Perrysburg Township, Wood County, Ohio.  The parcels 
are known as the Wolf parcel, the DeChristopher parcel, and the Neiderhouse 
parcel. 
{¶ 3} In 2007, Miller and McCarthy, through a commonly owned entity 
known as Velocity Development, L.L.C., and with the approval and consent of 
the landowners, submitted applications to the Perrysburg Township Board of 
Trustees to rezone the three parcels to develop single-family residential 
subdivisions.  More specifically, Miller and McCarthy sought to rezone (1) about 
30.593 acres of the Wolf parcel, which was approximately 41 acres, from R-1 
(Rural Residential District) and R-2 (Suburban Residential District) to R-3 
(Suburban Residential District), (2) about 98.714 acres of the 99.9-acre 
DeChristopher parcel from A-1 (Agricultural District) to R-4A (Suburban 
Residential District), and (3) the entire Neiderhouse parcel from A-1 (Agricultural 
District) to R-3 (Suburban Residential District). 
{¶ 4} On December 17, 2007, the township board of trustees adopted 
resolutions rezoning the three parcels that differed in certain particulars from the 
rezoning requested by Miller and McCarthy, including adding conditions.  In 
Resolution 2007-28, the board of trustees rezoned the Wolf parcel from R-1 and 
R-2 to A-1 and R-3, instead of simply to R-3 as requested.  In Resolution 2007-
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
29, the board of trustees approved the application to rezone the specified portion 
of the DeChristopher parcel from A-1 to R-4A.  In Resolution 2007-27, the board 
of trustees rezoned the Neiderhouse parcel from A-1 to A-1 and R-3, instead of 
solely to R-3 as requested. 
{¶ 5} As noted, the board’s rezoning of the three parcels was subject to 
various conditions.  For example, the rezoning of the Wolf and Neiderhouse 
parcels was conditioned on the properties being developed substantially in 
accordance with preliminary plans attached to the resolutions.  In addition, all of 
the resolutions contained the following conditions: 
{¶ 6} 1.  “Future lot owners in the subdivision developed on the [parcel] 
shall not be required to sign annexation petitions and there shall not be any 
annexation provisions, powers of appointment or powers of attorney regarding 
annexation in future purchase contracts or any annexation covenants in future 
deeds that arise as a matter of contract; and 
{¶ 7} 2.  “McCarthy Builders, Inc., an Ohio corporation, its successors 
and assigns, shall file an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 5301.252, or similar 
instrument, releasing the right to annex lots in the Emerald Lakes Subdivision, or 
to exercise any powers of appointment or powers of attorney regarding 
annexation following the effective date of this resolution, as finally determined, 
demonstrating that there exist no contracts or agreements of any kind with owners 
of the [parcel], or any real estate that is contiguous to the [parcel], that confer 
upon any third party the right to compel the annexation of the [parcel] to any 
municipality.” 
Referendum Petitions and Protest 
{¶ 8} After the township board of trustees passed the resolutions 
rezoning the three parcels, certain township residents circulated separate 
referendum petitions seeking to submit the rezoning for each of the parcels to 
township electors at the November 4, 2008 general election.  The petitions were 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
submitted to the board of trustees, but the board refused to certify the petitions to 
respondent, Wood County Board of Elections. 
{¶ 9} Shortly thereafter, certain petition circulators filed a petition in the 
Court of Appeals for Wood County for a writ of mandamus to compel the 
township, its trustees, and its fiscal officer to certify the referendum petitions to 
the board of elections.  In February 2009, the court of appeals granted the writ of 
mandamus to compel the respondents in that case to certify the referendum 
petitions to the board of elections.  Hunter v. Britten, 180 Ohio App.3d 755, 2009-
Ohio-663, 907 N.E.2d 360, ¶ 69. 
{¶ 10} The board of elections voted to certify the referendum petitions to 
the November 3, 2009 general election ballot.  On August 4, 2009, pursuant to 
R.C. 3501.39, Miller and McCarthy filed a written protest with the board of 
elections challenging the referendum petitions.  In their protest, Miller and 
McCarthy claimed that the petitions were invalid because they (1) failed to 
include the resolutions’ express condition that McCarthy file an affidavit releasing 
the right to annex the property and demonstrating that no agreements exist that 
confer on any third party the right to compel annexation of the property to any 
municipality, (2) buried this condition in dense text purporting to be legal 
descriptions of the property, (3) contained the wrong acreage of each rezoned 
parcel, and (4) did not include maps. 
{¶ 11} On August 26, 2009, the board of elections conducted a hearing at 
which it considered the protest.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of 
elections denied the protest. 
Prohibition Case 
{¶ 12} On September 1, Miller and McCarthy filed this expedited election 
action for a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections from submitting 
the resolutions to a vote at the November 3, 2009 general election.  The board of 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
elections submitted an answer, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs 
pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). 
{¶ 13} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the 
merits. 
Legal Analysis 
Prohibition Claim 
{¶ 14} Miller and McCarthy request a writ of prohibition to prevent the 
board of elections from placing the resolutions rezoning the Wolf, DeChristopher, 
and Neiderhouse parcels on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot.  To be 
entitled to the writ, Miller and McCarthy must establish that (1) the board of 
elections is about to exercise quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power 
is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no 
adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. 
Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 
573, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 15} Miller and McCarthy have established the first requirement 
because “R.C. 3501.39(A)(2) required that the board of elections conduct a quasi-
judicial hearing on relators’ protest.”  State ex rel. Upper Arlington v. Franklin 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 119 Ohio St.3d 478, 2008-Ohio-5093, 895 N.E.2d 177, ¶ 
16.  “[A] board of elections * * * is a quasi-judicial body when it considers 
protests.”  State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 306, 686 N.E.2d 238.  “[E]ven if the board 
[has] already exercised its quasi-judicial power by denying [the] protest, relief in 
prohibition is still available to prevent the placement of names or issues on a 
ballot, as long as the election has not yet been held.”  Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. 
of Elections, 102 Ohio St.3d 425, 2004-Ohio-3701, 811 N.E.2d 1130, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 16} For the second requirement of the exercise of unauthorized power, 
“we must determine whether the board [of elections] acted fraudulently or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
corruptly, abused its discretion, or clearly disregarded applicable law.”  State ex 
rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 
846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 23.  There is no claim of fraud or corruption here, so Miller and 
McCarthy must establish that the board of elections abused its discretion or 
clearly disregarded applicable law by denying their protest and certifying the 
resolutions rezoning the parcels for a vote on the November 3 election ballot. 
{¶ 17} For the third requirement for the writ, Miller and McCarthy must 
establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex 
rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 
882 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 25. 
Issues that Were Not Raised in Relators’ Protest 
{¶ 18} In this expedited election case, Miller and McCarthy claim that the 
board of elections clearly disregarded applicable law and abused its discretion by 
certifying the resolutions rezoning the properties to the election ballot.  Among 
other things, they claim that the Wolf and Neiderhouse referendum petitions are 
invalid because they do not include the preliminary plans attached to the 
resolutions rezoning the parcels, that the DeChristopher referendum petition is 
invalid because it includes inconsistent amounts of acreage, and that all the 
conditions specified in the resolutions are placed in a manner that camouflages 
them and makes them confusing. 
{¶ 19} Under R.C. 3501.39(A)(2), a board of elections shall accept any 
petition unless a “written protest against the petition or candidacy, naming 
specific objections, is filed, a hearing is held, and a determination is made by the 
election officials with whom the protest is filed that the petition violates any 
requirement established by law.”  (Emphasis added.)  “One of the evident 
purposes of this requirement [concerning specifying objections to a petition in a 
written protest] is to give notice to the petitioner and the opportunity to present 
evidence to rebut the objections specified”; “[t]his purpose is not served if the 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
board permits protestors to introduce evidence on objections not specified in their 
protest.”  See Cooker, 80 Ohio St.3d at 308, 686 N.E.2d 238, interpreting the 
analogous provisions in R.C. 3501.39(A)(1). 
{¶ 20} Insofar as the issues now raised by Miller and McCarthy were not 
raised in their written protest, the court need not consider them.  State ex rel. 
Phillips v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 535, 539, 757 
N.E.2d 319.  Miller and McCarthy cannot establish that the board of elections 
abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law based on claims they 
failed to specifically raise in their written protest before the board.  Cf. State ex 
rel. Stoll v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 76, 2008-Ohio-333, 881 
N.E.2d 1214, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 21} Moreover, because Miller and McCarthy could have raised these 
claims in their statutory protest but failed to do so, the availability of the protest 
constituted an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which precludes the 
requested extraordinary writ on these claims.  Cooker, 80 Ohio St.3d at 308, 686 
N.E.2d 238, citing State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 
64 Ohio St.3d 12, 14-15, 591 N.E.2d 1194; R.C. 3501.39(A)(2). 
{¶ 22} Therefore, Miller and McCarthy are not entitled to a writ of 
prohibition on claims that they failed to raise in their written protest filed with the 
board of elections. 
Condition on Agreements to Annex Property to Municipality 
{¶ 23} In their protest, Miller and McCarthy did raise the argument that 
the referendum petitions were invalid because the language setting forth one of 
the conditions for rezoning – that McCarthy had to file an affidavit stating that it 
had released the right to annex the property and that no agreements existed 
conferring on any third party the right to compel annexation of the parcels to any 
municipality – was either imprecise, buried in dense text, or otherwise contained 
in an inaccurate and misleading summary. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 24} “Under R.C. 519.12(H), each part of a petition seeking a 
referendum on a township zoning amendment must also contain a ‘brief 
summary’ of the contents of the amendment.”  State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. 
Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 
N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 37. 
{¶ 25} “The phrase ‘brief summary of its contents’ refers to the zoning 
resolution passed by the township trustees.”  State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga 
Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 176, 179, 685 N.E.2d 502.  Under the 
applicable test, “[t]he summary must be accurate and unambiguous; otherwise, the 
petition is invalid and the subject resolution will not be submitted for vote.”  S.I. 
Dev. & Constr., L.L.C. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 272, 
2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 17.  Therefore, “[i]f the summary is 
misleading, inaccurate, or contains material omissions which would confuse the 
average person, the petition is invalid and may not form the basis for submission 
to a vote.”  Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1984), 12 Ohio 
St.3d 140, 141, 12 OBR 180, 465 N.E.2d 883. 
{¶ 26} The referendum petitions for the Wolf and DeChristopher parcels 
contain language in the summaries specifying that the rezoning was “further 
conditioned upon McCarthy Builders, Inc. filing an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 
5301.252 releasing the right to annex lots in the Emerald Lakes Subdivision or 
empowering anyone on its behalf from taking action to annex that property.”  The 
referendum petition for the Neiderhouse parcel contains comparable language 
specifying that the rezoning was “further conditioned upon McCarthy Builders, 
Inc. filing an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 5301.252 releasing the right to annex lots 
in the Emerald Lakes Subdivision or empowering any one on its behalf from 
taking such action.” 
{¶ 27} Although it is true that this summary language is not in the precise 
language of the condition specified in the resolutions and that the language is 
January Term, 2009 
9 
 
located at the end of the summary, after legal descriptions of the property that is 
being rezoned, the language used by the petitioners accurately summarizes the 
specified condition and would not mislead or confuse the average person.  The 
mere presence of the legal descriptions of the property in the petition summaries 
is not improper even though the resolutions did not include these descriptions.  
See State ex rel. Rife v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 632, 
635, 640 N.E.2d 522 (“The obligation to briefly summarize the contents of a 
rezoning resolution * * * implicitly requires a referendum petition to accurately 
describe property subject to rezoning”); Gemienhardt, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-
Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 41 (“we have never held that summaries are 
restricted to the wording of the resolution”). 
{¶ 28} Therefore, Miller and McCarthy have not established their 
entitlement to the writ on this claim. 
Incorrect Acreage in Referendum Petition Summary 
{¶ 29} Relators finally claim that the referendum petitions are invalid 
because they contain the wrong acreage for the rezoned parcels. 
{¶ 30} Referendum petitions that convey a confusing or mistaken 
impression of a zoning resolution by significantly overestimating the acreage 
rezoned by the resolution sought to be referred are invalid.  O’Beirne, 80 Ohio 
St.3d at 180, 685 N.E.2d 502; State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 556, 562, 621 N.E.2d 391.  A slight misstatement 
of the acreage, however, is insufficient to withhold the rezoning from the 
electorate.  See, e.g., Stutzman v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 Ohio 
St.3d 511, 515, 757 N.E.2d 297, holding that a de minimis error in the acreage 
listed in the title of referendum petition relating to a village ordinance rezoning 
property did not violate the R.C. 731.31 requirement that referendum petitions 
contain a “full and correct copy of the title of the ordinance” because there was no 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
evidence or any reasonable argument that the error could have misled electors to 
sign a petition that they would not have signed had the correct acreage been listed. 
{¶ 31} For the Wolf parcel, Miller and McCarthy claim – as they did in 
their protest – that the referendum petition summary incorrectly specifies that two 
parcels, a total of approximately 72 acres, when only the 41-acre parcel was 
rezoned by the township resolution.  Relators’ claim has merit.  The referendum 
petition concerning the zoning amendment relating to the Wolf parcel applies to 
one 41-acre parcel and not to two parcels totaling over 71 acres.  By significantly 
overestimating the acreage affected by the rezoning, the referendum petitions 
conveyed a mistaken and confusing impression of the resolution so as to mislead 
or confuse the average person that the rezoning would affect considerably more 
property than actually impacted. 
{¶ 32} This conclusion is not altered by the board’s argument that the 
resolution rezoning the Wolf parcel did not refer to the actual acreage rezoned.  
“By choosing to summarize the resolution in language other than that employed 
by the board of township trustees, [the referendum petitioners’] additional 
language had to satisfy the applicable test in R.C. 519.12(H).”  Gemienhardt, 109 
Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 43.  The petitioners did not 
satisfy the applicable test when they significantly overstated the acreage rezoned.  
Nor did the attachment of a preliminary drawing to the referendum petition 
sufficiently clarify or remedy the substantial misstatement of the acreage in the 
summary. 
{¶ 33} For the DeChristopher parcel, Miller and McCarthy claim that 
rather than simply state that 98.81 acres of the parcel were being rezoned, the 
petition contains a lengthy and confusing legal description with inconsistent 
amounts of acreage. Relators did not, however, raise this specific claim in their 
written protest and we need not address it.  Instead, they claimed in their written 
protest only that the referendum petition incorrectly stated that the portion of the 
January Term, 2009 
11 
 
parcel being rezoned was 99.9 acres instead of the actual acreage of what they 
stated was 98.81 acres.  Assuming that the contention raised in the protest is 
accurate, the slight misstatement in acreage is insufficient to withhold the zoning 
amendment from the electorate.  See Stutzman, 93 Ohio St.3d at 515, 757 N.E.2d 
297. 
{¶ 34} Finally, for the Neiderhouse parcel, Miller and McCarthy claim 
that based upon auditor records they had submitted as evidence in this case, the 
parcel is 40.71 acres instead of the 37.126 acres specified in the referendum 
petition.  But  relators did not cite the auditor’s listing of acreage in their written 
protest.  Rather, in their protest, Miller and McCarthy argued that the actual 
acreage of the parcel is 37.926 acres, or .8 acres more than the 37.126 acres 
specified as the approximate acreage of the parcel in the referendum petition.  
This figure comports with the drawing attached to relators’ application for a 
zoning amendment.  Again, any minimal misstatement in acreage is insufficient to 
preclude a referendum on the zoning amendment.  Stutzman, 97 Ohio St.3d at 
515, 757 N.E.2d 297. 
{¶ 35} Therefore, relators have established that the board of elections 
abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 519.12(H) by denying their 
protest challenging the referendum petition on the resolution rezoning the Wolf 
parcel, but they failed to establish any abuse of discretion or clear disregard of 
R.C. 519.12(H) by the board of elections in denying the protest challenging the 
referendum petitions on the resolutions rezoning the DeChristopher and 
Neiderhouse parcels.  Relators have also established the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law to challenge the validity of the Wolf 
referendum petition on the acreage issue because of the proximity of the 
November 3 election.  Upper Arlington, 119 Ohio St.3d 478, 2008-Ohio-5093, 
895 N.E.2d 177, ¶ 17. 
Conclusion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
{¶ 36} Relators have established their entitlement to the requested writ of 
prohibition regarding the referendum petition on the resolution rezoning the Wolf 
parcel but not for the referendum petitions on the resolutions rezoning the 
DeChristopher and Neiderhouse parcels.  Therefore, we grant a writ of prohibition 
to prevent the board of elections from submitting Perrysburg Township 
Resolution 2007-28, which rezones the Wolf parcel, to the township electorate at 
the November 3, 2009 election.  We deny relators’ remaining claims for a writ of 
prohibition to prevent the submission of the resolutions rezoning the other parcels 
to the electors at the November 3, 2009 election.  This holding is consistent with 
our duties recognizing that “[t]he constitutional right of citizens to referendum is 
of paramount importance,” State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner, 115 
Ohio St.3d 103, 2007-Ohio-4460, 873 N.E.2d 1232, ¶ 8, and that we liberally 
construe R.C. 519.12(H) in favor of the right of referendum, although referendum 
petitioners must still strictly comply with that requirement, Gemienhardt, 109 
Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 57. 
Writ granted in part 
and denied in part. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents and would deny the writ entirely. 
__________________ 
 
Eastman & Smith, Ltd., Jeffrey M. Stopar, and Lane D. Williamson, for 
relators. 
 
Rayle, Matthews & Coon and Max E. Rayle, for respondent. 
_____________________