State ex rel. Bazetta Twp. v. Yoder

2025 Ohio 4915

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 2025-T-0024
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Bazetta Twp. v. Yoder, 2025-Ohio-4915.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2025-T-0024 BAZETTA TOWNSHIP,

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

MARTHA C. YODER, Trial Court No. 2024 CV 02053 TRUMBULL COUNTY AUDITOR,

Respondent-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: October 27, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed

Cherry Lynne Poteet, 193 Beechwood Road, New Wilmington, PA 16142 (For Relator- Appellee).

Aaron M. Glasgow, Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Miller, LLC, Two Miranova Place, Suite 700, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Relator-appellee, Bazetta Township (“the Township”), brought this original

action in mandamus against respondent-appellant, Martha C. Yoder, the Trumbull County

Auditor (“the Auditor”), in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. The controversy

stems from the distribution of tax dollars owed to the Township into a bank account not

owned by the Township. The trial court granted the Township’s request for a writ of

mandamus and ordered the Auditor to issue a warrant or electronic funds transfer to the

Township in the amount of $80,857.18 plus statutory interest. Neither the trial court nor this court makes any determination as to the alleged negligence of either party. Our

decision is strictly a legal one, based solely on the application of relevant statutes. For

the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

Factual Background

{¶2} The Township is a subdivision, or taxing unit, within Trumbull County, Ohio,

with the authority to levy taxes on the property within its district. See R.C. 5705.01(A)

and (H). “All taxes levied on property shall be extended on the tax list and duplicate by

the county auditor of the county in which the property is located, and shall be collected

by the county treasurer of such county in the same manner and under the same laws and

rules as are prescribed for the assessment and collection of county taxes.” R.C.

5705.03(C).

{¶3} The Township’s trustees, by Resolution 069-24 adopted on June 11, 2024,

authorized the Township’s Fiscal Officer (“the Fiscal Officer”) to request advance

payments from the Trumbull County treasury for the Township’s 2023 second-half real

estate taxes. See R.C. 321.34. In August 2024, the Trumbull County Treasurer (“the

Treasurer”) settled with the Auditor the taxes and assessments collected since the

February 2024 settlement for all taxing authorities in Trumbull County, including the

Township. See R.C. 321.24(C) and 321.31.

{¶4} Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, cybercriminals had hacked into the

Fiscal Officer’s email account when multi-factor authentication was not in use. This email

account was then used by the cybercriminals to communicate with the Auditor’s office

and request the Township’s bank for deposits be changed from Huntington Bank to Green

Dot Bank. Based on the emails, an employee in the Auditor’s office changed the

PAGE 2 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 Township’s banking information and, over several weeks, electronically deposited into the

Green Dot Bank account over $160,000.00 owed to the Township. The Township did not

own an account at Green Dot Bank. The Township discovered the fraud when it had not

received their tax distributions by the end of the month. Law enforcement was notified,

and all but $80,857.18 of the deposited funds were recovered. The Auditor has refused

to issue a warrant for additional funds to cover the loss.

{¶5} The Township filed its mandamus complaint in November 2024, requesting

a writ ordering the Auditor to pay the Township $80,857.18 in tax revenue, as follows:

Gasoline Excise Tax (Aug. 2024) $12,523,87 Local Government Funds (Aug. 2024) $6,025.71 “HB 64” Supplemental Funds (Aug. 2024) $522.33 Manufactured Home Tax (SH2024) $1,062.36 Motor Vehicle License Tax (July 2024) $722.91 Real Estate Tax Advance (Aug. 16) $45,000.00 Real Estate Tax Advance (Aug. 23) $15,000.00

{¶6} Relying on R.C. 321.24(C), 321.31, and 321.34, the Township alleged that

it has a clear legal right to receive the tax money collected from Township residents, that

the Auditor has a corresponding clear legal duty to pay the tax money to the Township,

and that the Auditor’s statutory duty is enforceable in mandamus. The Auditor answered

and asserted multiple defenses, including (1) the mandamus claim is moot because she

has completed her statutory duty; (2) she is entitled to immunity under R.C. Chapter

2744.; and (3) the Township’s damages are the result of the negligent, reckless, and/or

intentional conduct of the Township’s Fiscal Officer, for which the Fiscal Officer is liable

under R.C. 507.14.

{¶7} The Auditor filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which she

raised the above defenses and additionally argued that the Township used “creative

PAGE 3 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 pleading” to allege a tort claim for “negligence,” but she is immune from a negligence

claim under R.C. 2744.02(A) as a matter of law. This motion was implicitly denied, as the

trial court did not issue a separate ruling before issuing its final decision in the matter.

See State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 69 Ohio St.3d 217,

223 (1994) (“when a trial court fails to rule upon a pretrial motion, it may be presumed

that the court overruled it”).

{¶8} On April 23, 2025, following the parties’ submission of written arguments

and verified exhibits, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The

court found the Auditor admits that $80,857.18 is the accurate amount of funds she was

obligated by law to pay to the Township, and the Auditor cannot withhold these funds

from the Township where they were released to a fraudulent account due to cybercrime.

The court concluded the Township has a clear legal right to receive the $80,857.18 in tax

dollars, the Auditor has a corresponding clear legal duty to issue a warrant or electronic

funds transfer to the Township for the $80,857.18 in tax dollars collected by Trumbull

County and the State of Ohio for the Township, and the mandamus action is appropriate

because the Township does not have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the

law. Accordingly, the trial court granted the Township’s request for a writ of mandamus

and ordered the Auditor to issue a warrant or electronic funds transfer to the Township in

the amount of $80,857.18 plus statutory interest.

{¶9} The Auditor raises three assignments of error from this decision:

[1.] The Trial Court erred in granting a writ of mandamus, as the undisputed evidence established that Appellant already performed the function at issue, making Appellee’s claim for mandamus moot as a matter of law.

PAGE 4 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 [2.] The Trial Court erred in finding that Appellee was entitled to mandamus relief despite the fact that the Appellee had an adequate remedy at law other than mandamus relief.

[3.] The Trial Court erred in denying Appellant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on political subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A), as Appellant had been sued in tort for the performance of a governmental function and no exceptions to immunity apply.

Legal Standards

{¶10} The issues raised by the Auditor on appeal involve questions of law, which

we review de novo, i.e., without deference to the trial court’s decision. See, e.g., State

ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2022-Ohio-105, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.).

{¶11} “Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal,

a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law

specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.” R.C. 2731.01. To

be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must ordinarily establish (1) a clear legal

right to the relief requested, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide

that relief, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State

ex rel. Grendell v. Walder, 2022-Ohio-204, at ¶ 40, citing State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth,

2012-Ohio-69, ¶ 6. The relator must prove these requirements by clear and convincing

evidence. State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 2011-Ohio-6117, paragraph three of the syllabus.

Claim for Relief

{¶12} We begin with the Auditor’s third assignment of error, in which she asserts

that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for judgment on the pleadings. She

contends that the facts pleaded in the Township’s complaint, accepted as true, establish

that she was sued in tort for the performance of a governmental function and that no

exceptions to political-subdivision immunity apply.

PAGE 5 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 {¶13} We disagree. The Township did not raise a tort claim for negligence against

the Auditor in this case. The Township’s sole claim for relief is captioned “Writ of

Mandamus” and unquestionably sounds in mandamus:

39. [The Township] has a clear legal right to receive the tax money collected from Bazetta Township residents, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §321.31 and §321.34.

40. [The Auditor] has a clear legal duty under Ohio Revised Code §321.31 to “immediately after each settlement” issue warrants or make direct deposits to local taxing districts, including [the Township], paying out the proceeds of any special tax levy.

41. [The Auditor] has a clear legal duty under Ohio Revised Code §321.34 to issue warrants or make direct deposits for advance payments of real estate taxes collected to a local authority if so requested. [The Township], pursuant to Resolution 069-24 adopted by the Board of Trustees on June 11, 2024, requested that [the Auditor] make such advance payments to [the Township].

42. [The Township] does not have a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. This action is based on [the Auditor’s] statutory duty to timely issue warrants or make direct deposit of taxes collected to [the Township]. The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is not an adequate remedy at law where a public officer has a statutory duty to make a payment. State ex rel. The V Companies v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (1998) (writ of mandamus ordering county Auditor affirmed as statutory duty to issue warrant is a public duty enforceable by mandamus and a breach of contract action is not a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course law); State ex rel. Ms. Parsons Constr., Inc. v. Moyer, 72 Ohio St.3d 404, 406 (1995) (Relator is being damaged by failure of public officers to make payment, an official act that Respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform); State ex rel. Levin v. Schremp, 73 Ohio St.3d 733 (1995) (rights are enforceable in mandamus when the Respondent has a public duty to perform the act demanded).

43. Under Ohio Revised Code §2731.06, when the right to require the performance of an act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not doing it, a court, in the first instance, may allow a peremptory writ of mandamus.

44. [The Auditor] has no valid excuse for failing and refusing to pay to [the Township $80,857.18] in tax receipts collected from Bazetta Township [residents].

PAGE 6 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 WHEREFORE, [the Township] respectfully requests the Court provide the following relief:

1) Issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus directing [the Auditor] to pay [the Township $80, 857.18] plus statutory interest; ....

{¶14} Accordingly, the Auditor’s third assignment of error is not well taken.

Adequate Remedy at Law

{¶15} We next consider the Auditor’s second assignment of error. She contends

that the trial court erred in finding the Township had no plain and adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of the law, based on her position that the Township could seek to recover

damages in a tort action.

{¶16} Generally, mandamus will not issue when the relator has an adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Burkons v. Beachwood, 2022-

Ohio-748, ¶ 13. However, a mandamus action is expressly authorized by statute under

these circumstances. See R.C. 319.16(E) (“If the board, officer, or tribunal determines

that the expenditure is valid and the auditor refuses to issue the appropriate warrant on

the county treasury, a writ of mandamus may be sought,” and “[t]he court shall issue a

writ of mandamus for issuance of the warrant if the court determines that the claim is

valid.”). Accordingly, it is not necessary for us to consider whether the Township lacks

an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See Grendell, 2022-Ohio-204, at

¶ 40 (“because current R.C. 319.16(D) authorizes a mandamus action under these

circumstances, we do not consider whether [the relator] lacks an adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of the law”), citing State ex rel. Xenia v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,

PAGE 7 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 2020-Ohio-3423, ¶ 7 (“[b]ecause R.C. 709.023(G) authorizes an action in mandamus, a

court need not consider whether the relator lacks an adequate remedy at law”).

{¶17} The Auditor’s second assignment of error is without merit.

Clear Legal Duty

{¶18} Finally, in her first assignment of error, the Auditor contends the trial court

erred in granting a writ because the undisputed evidence establishes that she has already

performed her legal duty under the relevant statutes. See State ex rel. Breaux v. Court

of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 50 Ohio St.2d 164, 164 (1977) (“A writ of mandamus

will not issue to compel a public official to perform a legal duty which has been

completed.”). The Auditor admits her office issued electronic warrants for funds owed to

the Township, but to an account not owned by the Township as the result of cybercrime,

and $80,857.18 could not be recovered by the Township. The Township responds that

the Auditor has not yet fulfilled her legal duty because she issued electronic warrants for

these funds to a criminal rather than to the Township. The word “warrant” in this context

refers to a “warrant drawn by a county official, directing the county treasurer to pay a sum

of money out of county funds to bearer, to a named individual, or to the named individual’s

order,” Black’s Law Dictionary (12th Ed. 2024). Grendell, 2022-Ohio-204, at ¶ 2.

{¶19} “No money shall be paid from the county treasury, or transferred to any

person for disbursement, except on the warrant of the county auditor, including an

electronic warrant authorizing direct deposit, in accordance with [R.C. 9.37(F)], for

payment of county obligations.” R.C. 321.15. “The county auditor shall issue warrants,

including electronic warrants authorizing direct deposit for payment of county obligations

in accordance with [R.C. 9.37(F)], on the county treasurer for all moneys payable from

PAGE 8 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 the county treasury” when presented with a “proper order or voucher and evidentiary

matter.” R.C. 319.16(A)(1). The county auditor may “question[ ] the validity of an

expenditure presented under division (A)(1) of this section that is within available

appropriations” but is required to “notify the board . . . who presented the documents.”

R.C. 319.16(E). “If the board . . . determines that the expenditure is valid and the auditor

refuses to issue the appropriate warrant on the county treasury, a writ of mandamus may

be sought.” Id.

{¶20} Both R.C. 321.15 and 319.16 refer to R.C. 9.37(F), which provides that “a

county auditor may issue, and a county treasurer may redeem, electronic warrants

authorizing direct deposit for payment of county obligations in accordance with rules

adopted by the director of budget and management pursuant to Chapter 119. of the

Revised Code.” Any rules pertaining to electronic warrants adopted by the director of

budget and management are not in the record of this appeal. Regardless, we conclude

that the Auditor has not complied with her specific statutory duties under R.C. 321.31 and

321.34. See State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Pros. Office, 87 Ohio St.3d 158, 158

(1999) (“A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the general observance of

unspecified laws.”).

{¶21} Two broad categories of funds are at issue in this case: (1) the taxes levied

by the Township and collected by the Treasurer since the February 2024 settlement, as

determined during the August 2024 settlement with the Auditor, see R.C. 321.24(C) and

321.31; and (2) the advance payments of the Township’s 2023 second-half real estate

taxes as requested pursuant to Resolution 069-24, adopted by the Township’s board of

trustees on June 11, 2024, see R.C. 321.34.

PAGE 9 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 {¶22} Regarding the first category of funds, “[o]n or before the tenth day of August,

in each year, the treasurer shall settle with the auditor for all taxes and assessments that

the treasurer has collected on the general duplicates of real and public utility property at

the time of making such settlement, not included in the preceding February settlement.”

R.C. 321.24(C). “Immediately after each settlement with the county auditor, on demand,

and on presentation of the warrant of the auditor therefor, the county treasurer shall pay

to the township fiscal officer . . . all moneys in the county treasury payable to such boards

and subdivisions.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 321.31. See also R.C. 5747.50(E)(3) (county

auditor shall issue warrants against the undivided local government fund for the amounts

attributable to each taxing district); R.C. 4503.06 (upon warrant of county auditor,

collected manufactured home taxes shall be proportionately distributed among taxing

subdivisions); R.C. 5735.27(A)(3) (revenue credited to the gasoline excise tax fund shall

be divided in equal proportions among the townships); R.C. 4504.05(B)(2)(b) and (3)(b)

(motor vehicle license tax proceeds shall be allocated and distributed to townships).

{¶23} Regarding the second category of funds, “When the local authorities by

resolution so request, the county auditor shall pay township fiscal officers . . . any money

that may be in the county treasury to the accounts of the local authorities . . . and lawfully

applicable to the purpose of the current fiscal year in which the request is made.” R.C.

321.34(A)(1). See also R.C. 5705.02 (requiring a ten-mill limitation on taxable property

within a subdivision or taxing unit); R.C. 5705.19 (authorizing resolutions relative to tax

levies, such as police and fire, in excess of the ten-mill limitation).

{¶24} R.C. 321.34 specifically requires that the money be paid “to the accounts of

the local authorities”; R.C. 321.31 specifically requires the money be paid “to the township

PAGE 10 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 fiscal officer.” However, the electronic warrants issued by the Auditor were made payable

to an account that was neither owned by the Township nor authorized by the Fiscal Officer

to receive Township funds. We have found no exception for “cybercrime” or “fraud” that

excuses the Auditor from fulfilling her duty to issue warrants for these funds—which are

clearly the Township’s property—to the Township. See, e.g., State ex rel. Old Fort Local

School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Smith, 1983 WL 7233, *2 (3d Dist. Mar. 25, 1983) (where the

funds were clearly the property of the school board, the auditor and treasurer had no

discretion to withhold payment or delivery of the funds, and there was no statutory

exception to the mandated duty to pay the funds to the school board).

{¶25} The parties each assign blame to the other as to why or how the money

was paid to a cybercriminal: the Township allegedly turned off the multi-factor

authentication protections on the Fiscal Officer’s email account; the Auditor’s office

allegedly disregarded indicators of fraud, despite having received warnings from the State

Auditor about these payment-redirect email schemes. However, who may be liable for

the Township’s failure to receive the money is not the proper determination for this

mandamus action.1 The narrow question we must decide is whether the Auditor fulfilled

her statutory duty by depositing the money she admits belongs to the Township into an

account that was not owned by the Township. We conclude that she did not. Accordingly,

the Auditor’s first assignment of error is without merit.

1. In our modern age, bad actors have learned how to skillfully use the internet to disguise their nefarious activities. Indeed, in this case, the infiltrators manipulated information “in the cloud,” unbeknownst to any public official or public employee. Whether the proper safeguards were or were not in place on either side of these transactions, and regardless of the cross-allegations of negligence and liability—none of which is determinative in the case before us—the Township and the County are both victims of a modern-day heist.

PAGE 11 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 {¶26} The Township is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Auditor to issue

warrants or electronic funds transfers, totaling $80,857.18 plus statutory interest, payable

to the Township’s Fiscal Officer and to an account owned by the Township.

{¶27} The Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas’ judgment granting a writ of

mandamus is affirmed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

SCOTT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

PAGE 12 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignments of error

are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the

Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE MATT LYNCH

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 13 OF 13

Case No. 2025-T-0024