School board filed complaint against township, seeking to recover money from tax-increment financing (TIF) project.
The Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of township. Board appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Action was untimely;
- Continuous-violation doctrine did not toll statute of limitations;
- Delayed-damage rule did not toll statute of limitations; and
- Discovery rule did not toll statute of limitations.
Essence of school board’s complaint against township was equitable relief rather than money damages, and thus two-year statute of limitations for actions against political subdivisions did not apply, where school board was seeking to recover money to which it contended that it was entitled under tax-increment financing (TIF) statutes but for township’s allegedly improper actions.
Six-year statute of limitations for a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty, rather than ten-year catch-all statute of limitations, applied to school board’s action against township contending that it was entitled to money under tax-increment financing (TIF) statutes; without statutes authorizing townships to create TIFs, township could not have enacted resolutions amending TIF project.