Bd. of Educ. of the Loveland City Sch. Dist. v. Bd. of Trs. of Symmes Twp.
Citations
- 2018 Ohio 1731
- 111 N.E.3d 833
Syllabus
APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - PROCEDURE/RULES - TAX - TOWNSHIPS - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - CONTINUOUS-VIOLATION DOCTRINE - DELAYED-DAMAGE RULE - DISCOVERY RULE: Because the township did not seek to change the judgment being appealed, its use of a \cross-appeal\ to assert its arguments was improper and its \cross-appeal\ was dismissed. Former R.C. 5715.27(F) did not provide the school board's exclusive remedy to challenge the tax exemptions granted as part of the amendment and expansion of the township's tax-increment fund (\TIF\), because the statute applied to a property owner seeking a real-property tax exemption. The two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.14 for actions against a political subdivision did not apply in an action where the school board challenged the township's amendment and expansion of the TIF, because the essence of the school board's claims was not money damages, but equitable relief. The statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.07 for liability created by a statute applied to the school board's action against the township relating to the amendment and expansion of the TIF, because the township could not have enacted the resolutions amending the TIF without the statutes specifically authorizing it to do so. The school board's cause of action accrued in 2003 when the township amended the TIF and allegedly improperly expanded the scope of the public improvements funded by the TIF, because that was when the alleged statutory violation had occurred. The continuous-violation doctrine did not apply because all of the alleged tortious activity was completed in 2003 the township's acts after that time were merely a continuation of the effects of the 2003 TIF amendment, and the school board knew or should have known about the amendment. The appellate court declined to apply the delayed-damage rule where R.C. 2305.07 applied even if the rule had applied, the damage occurred in 2003 when the amendment to the original TIF had been made. The discovery
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- payment under covenant not to compete is compensation for refraining from exercising right to engage in business
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mock
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.