Boler v. Rittman

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the City of Rittman in a suit seeking repayment of municipal income taxes collected at an allegedly unauthorized 1.5% rate from 2008 through 2021. Relying on State ex rel. Rittman v. Spitler and related precedent, the court held that the claims were substantively governed by R.C. Chapter 2723 and that the taxpayers’ failure to file the written protest and notice of intent to sue required by R.C. 2723.03 barred recovery. The court also upheld the denial of the taxpayers’ Civ.R. 56(F) continuance and motion to compel discovery.

Holdings

1. Claims seeking recovery of municipal income taxes alleged to have been illegally imposed or collected are substantively governed by R.C. Chapter 2723, not R.C. Chapter 718, regardless of whether the complaint characterizes them as claims for overpayment, declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, or money had and received.
2. The written-protest and notice-of-intent-to-sue requirements of R.C. 2723.03 are mandatory and must be strictly followed; failure to comply bars an action to recover allegedly illegally collected taxes, regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks declaratory, equitable, monetary, or injunctive relief.
3. The futility exception did not excuse the taxpayers' failure to file a written protest and notice of intent to sue because the City had authority to grant a refund; the taxpayers showed only that obtaining relief was unlikely, not that the required act would have been legally incapable of producing relief.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the taxpayers' Civ.R. 56(F) motion because they failed to identify material facts that additional discovery could establish to rebut the City's summary-judgment argument.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying the taxpayers' motion to compel discovery because the taxpayers failed to demonstrate prejudice or explain how the requested discovery would have rebutted the City's summary-judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the taxpayers' claims were substantively governed by R.C. Chapter 2723 rather than R.C. Chapter 718, regardless of how the claims were labeled in the complaint.
2. Whether the taxpayers' failure to file the written protest and notice of intent to sue required by R.C. 2723.03 barred their claims for recovery of the allegedly illegal taxes, including their equitable claims.
3. Whether the futility exception excused compliance with R.C. 2723.03 because the City had already denied refund requests.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the taxpayers' Civ.R. 56(F) motion for a continuance.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by implicitly denying the taxpayers' motion to compel discovery before granting summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed