Summary
Nontaxpaying nonresidents of municipal corporation who merely had a contingent, contractual interest in sewer rates paid by others lacked standing to bring mandamus action to compel mayor to enforce ordinance pertaining to sewer rates.
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Sinay v. SoddersOpinion
No. 93-131
Submitted April 6, 1993 —
Decided August 11, 1993.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 64242.
Appellants, Roderick and James Russell, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County to compel appellee, Walter Ehrnfelt, the Mayor of Strongsville, to enforce Strongsville Codified Ordinances 1048.03, which pertains to sewer rates. In the complaint, appellants stated that Roderick Russell was beneficially interested in the case through a contract to perform a utility audit with a user of Strongsville's Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities under which he would receive compensation based on any reduction in the client's utility bill achieved through his efforts, and that James Russell assisted in the business. They stated that the ordinance was being misinterpreted, resulting in overcharges to their client.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging, inter alia, lack of standing. The court of appeals granted the motion, holding that appellants lack standing under R.C. 2731.02.
The cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Roderick Russell and James Russell, pro se. Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Frank A. DiPiero and James W. Satola, for appellee Walter Ehrnfelt, Mayor.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
R.C. 2731.02 states in part:
"Such writ [of mandamus] may issue on the information of the party beneficially interested."
In State ex rel. Brophy v. Cleveland (1943), 141 Ohio St. 518, 26 O.O. 87, 49 N.E.2d 175, we held that a nontaxpaying nonresident of a municipal corporation who was merely an agent-purchaser of water for others had no beneficial interest in the municipal water rates. We adhere to that decision. Here, appellants have only a contingent, contractual interest in the rates paid by others.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.