State ex rel. Ames v. Freedom Twp. Bd. of Trustees

2024 Ohio 1645

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 29, 2024
• Docket: 2023-P-0069
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Freedom Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2024-Ohio-1645.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2023-P-0069 BRIAN M. AMES,

Relator-Appellant, Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas - vs -

FREEDOM TOWNSHIP Trial Court No. 2021 CV 00421 BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Respondent-Appellee.

OPINION

Decided: April 29, 2024 Judgment: Reversed and remanded

Brian M. Ames, pro se, 2632 Ranfield Road, Mogadore, OH 44260 (Relator-Appellant).

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Brett R. Bencze, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent- Appellee).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Brian Ames, appeals the trial court’s judgment on remand from

this court in State ex rel. Ames v. Freedom Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 11th Dist. Portage No.

2022-P-0005, 2023-Ohio-343 (“Ames v. Freedom Twp. I”). Appellant specifically asserts

that the trial court failed to award him all court costs pursuant to R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a). For

the following reasons, the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is

reversed and remanded to award Appellant all court costs. {¶2} This case originated when Appellant filed a petition in mandamus in the

lower court alleging that Appellee had committed five violations of R.C. 121.22, the Open

Meetings Act (“OMA”). Appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court found

that Appellee had violated the OMA alleged in Counts 1, 2, and 3, but found no violations

as to Counts 4 and 5 and dismissed them. It further found that the violations in Counts 1

and 2 were “identical, technical in nature and were undertaken without intent to deceive”

and thus ordered one civil forfeiture in the amount of $500. The court also ordered one

$500 civil forfeiture pertaining to Count 3.

{¶3} Appellant timely appealed that judgment in Ames v. Freedom Twp. I. He

raised six assignments of error. In relevant part, Appellant asserted that the trial court

was required to issue injunctions as to each of Counts 1, 2, and 3, and that the court was

therefore required to award him all court costs.

{¶4} On appeal, this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the

case to the trial court “for further proceedings related to Counts 4 and 5; to issue an

injunction as required by R.C. 121.22(I)(1) in connection with Counts 1 and 2 for the

Board's failure to establish a rule compliant with R.C. 121.22(F); to issue an injunction as

required by R.C. 121.22(I)(1) in connection with Count 3 for the Board's holding an

executive session for a purpose not established by law; and to issue appropriate civil

forfeitures for each injunction issued and to award court costs as required by R.C.

121.22(I)(2)(a).” State ex rel. Ames v. Freedom Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 11th Dist. Portage

No. 2022-P-0005, 2023-Ohio-343, ¶ 38.

{¶5} On remand, the trial court followed our directives, except as to awarding

Appellant all court costs. The trial court’s September 12, 2023 judgment entry on remand

Case No. 2023-P-0069 addressed court costs, stating: “This appellate decision ordered that court costs be taxed

equally between the two parties. In view of this Court’s verdicts announced herein, this

Court awards Plaintiff his further court costs incurred since remand of this case to this

Court by the Court of Appeals.”

{¶6} Appellant timely appeals and raises one assignment of error:

{¶7} “The trial court committed reversible error by failing to award all court costs

to Mr. Ames.”

{¶8} In Ames v. Freedom Twp. I, ¶ 24, this Court analyzed Appellant’s

assignment of error concerning court costs. We explained:

The parties herein also agree that the court erred by failing to award Mr. Ames all court costs. R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a) states in pertinent part “[i]f the court of common pleas issues an injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section, * * * shall award to that party all court costs * * *.”As discussed under Mr. Ames’ second assignment of error, the trial court should have issued [two] injunctions as to the violations of the OMA set forth in Counts 1, 2 and 3. The statutory language again uses the imperative “shall,” i.e., the award of court costs is not discretionary. See Dohm, supra, at ¶ 16. Accordingly, the failure of the trial court to award court costs is reversible error. (Emphasis added).

{¶9} On remand from this Court, the trial court issued two injunctions; one as to

the violations of OMA alleged in Counts 1 and 2, and one as to Count 3. R.C.

121.22(I)(2)(a) provides that if the trial court “issues an injunction pursuant to division

(I)(1) of this section” (which it did), the trial court is then required to award the complaining

party “all court costs.” (Emphasis added). We cannot discern from this record why the

trial court awarded Appellant only “his further court costs incurred since remand of this

case to this Court by the Court of Appeals.” But, R.C.121.22(I)(2)(a) is clear and

Case No. 2023-P-0069 unambiguous in that the trial court, in this instance, must award Appellant all court costs

associated with the original proceedings.

{¶10} Accordingly, Appellant’s assignment of error has merit.

{¶11} The judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is reversed.

This matter is remanded for the trial court to award Appellant all court costs associated

with the proceedings below as required under R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2023-P-0069