Appeals court overturns dismissal of lawsuit to remove Avon Lake mayor

An appeals court has overturned the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to oust Avon Lake Mayor Mark Spaetzel and ordered the Lorain County Common Pleas Court to consider the matter. The 9th District Court of Appeals determined that Lorain County Probate Judge James Walther erred when he dismissed the case brought by a local group seeking Spaetzel's removal, and it ordered the court to hear the case again. The decision handed down Monday does not affirm the claim of the lawsuit or itself remove Spaetzel from office. In February 2025, Avon Lake attorney Gerald Phillips had filed a complaint in Probate Court on behalf of himself and several Avon Lake residents saying Spaetzel should be removed due to alleged malfeasance in office, related to the ongoing remediation of the former Avon Lake Power Plant and other issues. Phillips cited a provision in Ohio Revised Code that allows citizens to petition probate judges to oust legislators accused of accepting unlawful compensation, having undue interest in a public contract or who are "guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance." In March 2025, Walther had ruled that his court had no jurisdiction over the complaint because Avon Lake is a charter city, which has its own procedure for removal of a mayor in its charter, therefore superseding the state provision. Phillips appealed that decision to the 9th District Court of Appeals. In its 2-1 decision this week, the appeals court ruled in favor of Phillips' appeal. The majority, made up of Judge Jill Flagg Lanzinger and Judge Jennifer Hensal, said in their decision that the probate court did not properly address the question of whether there was an actual conflict between the state law, Ohio Revised Code 733.72, and Avon Lake's charter provision for removing a mayor. If no conflict exists, Flagg Lanzinger wrote, then the two provisions could exist and be enforced concurrently, and the case should not be dismissed. Flagg Lanzinger wrote that the appeals court would not make a determination as to whether such a conflict existed because Walther had not properly considered the question first. The appeals court ordered the probate court to again hear the motion to dismiss filed by Avon Lake Law Director Gary Ebert, and evaluate the question of conflict as well as Ebert and Phillips' other arguments. "This court will not analyze whether a conflict exists between the two removal provisions — nor appellants' argument that the removal provisions provide alternative mechanisms for the removal of a mayor—in the first instance," Flagg Lanzinger said in the decision. "Consequently, this court must reverse and remand the matter for the probate court to address these issues in the first instance, as well as the alternative arguments presented in Ebert's motion to dismiss." Ninth District Judge Betty Sutton dissented, writing that the case should have been dismissed. She wrote that because the voters of Avon Lake had approved a separate process for the removal of their mayor, they had opted out of the state provision regarding the matter. Because of this, Sutton argued, Walther's dismissal of the case should have been upheld. "They're asking for the judge to elaborate more on the decision," Ebert said on Tuesday. He also said that the ruling does not require the city to take any action, and that Avon Lake is still able to appeal the decision, if it chooses to do so. Phillips did not return a request seeking comment before deadline Tuesday. Reporter Garrett Looker also contributed to this report. Contact Owen MacMillan at (440) 329-7123 or omacmillan@chroniclet.com.