Adamson v. Varnau
2014 Ohio 5739
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Steve and Rebecca Adamson filed a complaint under R.C. 3.07 seeking removal of Brown County Coroner Dr. Judith Varnau after several deaths between Jan. 2013 and Jan. 2014, including their son Zachary. Attached was a petition with ~2,300 signatures.
- Allegations included failure to secure and return decedent personal property, posting a decedent's SSN on a website, refusing to deliver firearms to the sheriff, failing to treat some scenes as possible homicides, and placing personal interest above public duty.
- The common pleas court held a bench trial with testimony from 25 witnesses and 18 exhibits and denied removal, finding the Adamsons failed to prove gross neglect, misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Adamsons appealed; this court granted leave to appeal and limited review to legal sufficiency (questions of law) under R.C. 3.09 rather than factual weight or credibility.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding the record did not contain legally sufficient clear-and-convincing evidence to require removal and emphasizing that removal statutes are quasi-penal and disfavor removing elected officials for isolated or minor infractions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coroner's alleged confiscation/distribution of property and posting of SSN constitute malfeasance warranting removal | Adamson: these acts are malfeasance and individually justify removal | Varnau: evidence insufficient; procedural defenses; appeal limited to questions of law | Court: Evidence insufficient as a matter of law to meet clear-and-convincing standard for removal |
| Whether repeated refusal to deliver decedents' firearms to law enforcement constitutes willful misconduct warranting removal | Adamson: refusal to turn over firearms is willful misconduct requiring removal | Varnau: denies legal sufficiency; procedural/jurisdictional arguments | Court: Not legally sufficient to show willful misconduct requiring removal |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review factual findings from removal proceeding | Adamson: appeal permitted after leave; challenges sufficiency of evidence | Varnau: R.C. 3.09 limits appeals to questions of law; factual review barred | Court: Review limited to legal sufficiency; this appeal is a question of law (sufficiency), so jurisdiction exists |
| Standard of proof and its application to removal statutes | Adamson: presented testimony and exhibits meeting standard | Varnau: argued clear-and-convincing not met and removal statutes strictly construed | Court: Removal requires clear-and-convincing proof; statutes construed narrowly; Adamsons did not meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ragozine v. Shaker, 96 Ohio St.3d 201 (2002) (describing grounds for removal under R.C. 3.07)
- In re Removal of Kuehnle, 161 Ohio App.3d 399 (2005) (articulating clear-and-convincing standard and caution against removing elected officials for minor infractions)
- In re Election of November 6, 1990 for the Office of Atty. Gen. of Ohio, 58 Ohio St.3d 103 (1991) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defining clear-and-convincing proof standard)
- Mack v. Mack, 66 Ohio App.2d 79 (1979) (removal of elected officials should be reserved for substantial reasons; public should decide at ballot box)
- In re Removal of Sites, 170 Ohio App.3d 272 (2006) (appellate courts may review sufficiency of evidence in removal cases)
- McMillen v. Diehl, 128 Ohio St. 212 (1934) (removal proceedings are quasi-penal and strictly construed)