Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 709
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 709.032 (2026)

Annexation hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 1, 2009
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 525 - 127th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) As used in this section, "necessary party" means the municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed, each township any portion of which is included within the territory proposed for annexation, and the agent for the petitioners.

(B) The hearing provided for in section 709.03 of the Revised Code shall be public. The board of county commissioners may, or at the request of any necessary party shall, issue subpoenas for witnesses or for books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, agreements, or other documents or records relevant or material to the petition, directed to the sheriff of each county where the witnesses or documents or records are found, which subpoenas shall be served and returned in the same manner as those allowed by the court of common pleas in criminal cases. The fees of sheriffs shall be the same as those allowed by the court of common pleas in criminal cases. Witnesses shall be paid the fees and mileage provided for under section 1901.26 of the Revised Code. The fee and mileage expenses incurred at the request of a party shall be paid in advance by the party, and the remainder of the expenses shall be paid out of fees charged by the board for the annexation proceedings. In case of disobedience or neglect of any subpoena served on any person, or the refusal of any witness to testify to any matter regarding which the witness may be lawfully interrogated, the court of common pleas of the county in which the disobedience, neglect, or refusal occurs, or any judge of that court, on application of the board, any member of the board, or a necessary party, may compel obedience by attachment proceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of the requirements of a subpoena issued from the court or a refusal to testify in the court. An owner of a company, firm, partnership, association, or corporation that is subpeoned may have an agent or attorney appear before the board on that owner's behalf in response to the subpoena.

The board of county commissioners shall make, by electronic means or some other suitable method, a record of the hearing. If a request, accompanied by a deposit to pay the costs, is filed with the board not later than seven days before the hearing, the board shall provide an official court reporter to record the hearing. The record of the hearing need not be transcribed unless a request, accompanied by an amount to cover the cost of transcribing the record, is filed with the board.

(C) Any person may appear in person or by attorney and, after being sworn, may support or contest the granting of the petition. Affidavits presented in support of or against the petition shall be considered by the board, but only if the affidavits are filed with the board and served as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure upon the necessary parties to the annexation proceedings at least fifteen days before the date of the hearing; provided that the board shall accept an affidavit after the fifteen-day period if the purpose of the affidavit is only to establish the affiant's authority to sign the petition on behalf of the entity for which the affiant signed. Necessary parties or their representatives are entitled to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and comment on all evidence, including any affidavits presented to the board under this division.

(D) At the hearing, any owner who signed the petition for annexation may appear and, after being sworn as provided by section 305.21 of the Revised Code, testify orally that the owner's signature was obtained by fraud, duress, misrepresentation, including any misrepresentation relating to the provision of municipal services to the territory proposed to be annexed, or undue influence. Any person may testify orally after being so sworn in support of or rebuttal to the prior testimony by the owner. Any witnesses and owners who testify shall be subject to cross-examination by the necessary parties to the annexation proceedings. If a majority of the county commissioners find that the owner's signature was obtained under circumstances that did constitute fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or undue influence, they shall find the signature to be void and shall order it removed from the petition as of the time the petition was filed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: In Re Petition for Annexation of 162.631 Acres, 556 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Petition for Annexation of 162.631 Acres, 556 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 10× “22, “the Sunshine Law,” and R.C. 709.032. R.C. 709.032 provides that the hearing before the board shall be public.”
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 693 N.E.2d 219 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 2× “Instead of limiting the factors and information to be considered, the General Assembly in 1980 amended the hearing provisions contained in R.C. 709.032 to expand the amount of testimony and information that would be admissible at an annexation hearing by allowing “any person”…”
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. v. Doughman, 64 Ohio St. 3d 585 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 2× “However, as discussed infra, R.C. 709.032 does provide for an amendment to the petition if leave is granted by the board of county commissioners and consent is given by the agent for the petitioners.”
City of Cleveland v. City of Fairview Park, 545 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “” In contrast, this section makes no provision for the cross-examination of persons whose affidavits have been submitted to the board.”
In re Appeal of Bass Lake Cmty., Inc., 449 N.E.2d 771 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 3× “Particularly cited is the change in the language of R.C. 709.032 which eliminated the distinction between “person interested” and “any other person.”
Bd. of Trs. of Perry Twp. v. Cicchinelli, 520 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “We cannot find, as the court did below, that there was error in the proceedings before the county commissioners pursuant to R.C. 709.032 and 709.033. Nor can we find any fraud in the proceedings as alleged by the Perry Trustees.”
Twp. of Jefferson v. City of West Carrollton, 517 F. Supp. 417 (S.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 2× “days to complete same), the signing of a petition seeking annexation, under the procedures followed with reference to the subject property, is only a necessary condition precedent to bringing the issue to the county commission, which said body then makes the decision, after a…”
Garverick v. Hoffman, 262 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1970). · cites it 2× “Thereafter signatures may be withdrawn or removed only in the manner authorized by Section 709.032 of the Revised Code.” No reference is made in R.”
City of Cleveland v. Posner, 951 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “, the appellants were not given an opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses at their administrative hearing, because R.C. 709.032, which governs the procedural aspects of annexation hearings, does not have a provision for cross-examining affiants.”
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 1998 Ohio 340 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 2× “{¶ 60} Instead of limiting the factors and information to be considered, the General Assembly in 1980 amended the hearing provisions contained in R.C. 709.032 to expand the amount of testimony and information that would be admissible at an annexation hearing by allowing “any…”
Barga v. St. Paris Vill. Council, 2023 Ohio 1067 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “The appellate court disagreed: “An R.C. 709.032 annexation hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding.”
State ex rel. Unterbrink v. Elida Local Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2020 Ohio 5378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “At the hearing, which was required to be public, any person could appear and “support or contest the granting of the prayer of the petition” and the board was required to consider “[a]ffidavits presented in support of or against the prayer of such petition.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.