Ayers v. City of Cleveland
2017 Ohio 8571
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- David Ayers was convicted in 2000, later obtained habeas relief; a federal jury in 2013 awarded him $13,210,000 (plus $390,000 in fees/costs) against Cleveland detectives Kovach and Cipo for civil-rights violations. The Sixth Circuit affirmed liability.
- R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) requires a political subdivision to indemnify an employee for compensatory judgments arising from acts within scope of employment if done in good faith.
- The City defended the detectives in federal litigation without reserving rights but did not pay the judgment and instead funded counsel to assist the detectives with personal bankruptcy; Kovach’s bankruptcy discharged the judgment as to her.
- Ayers sued the City in Cuyahoga Common Pleas seeking to enforce statutory indemnification under R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) (among other tort/contract claims). The trial court granted Ayers partial summary judgment and entered judgment against the City for $13,210,000.
- The appellate court reversed: it held R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) creates an indemnification right belonging to the employee, not a private cause of action for a third‑party judgment creditor; therefore Ayers lacked standing to enforce the statute directly against the City.
- The appellate court remanded the case for adjudication of Ayers’s remaining non‑statutory claims (tortious interference, breach of contract, aiding and abetting, abuse of process, unjust enrichment, specific performance, civil conspiracy).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) gives a judgment creditor standing to sue the political subdivision to collect a judgment against an employee | Ayers: statute effectuates indemnification upon entry of judgment and serves the secondary purpose of making injured third parties whole; creditor can enforce the City’s duty | City: statute creates an employee-only right to indemnification; only the employee may enforce it | Court: No — statute protects employees; only employees have standing to enforce R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) |
| Whether a private cause of action is implied by R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) in favor of third-party creditors | Ayers: legislative intent and plain language support creditor enforcement after final judgment; third-party standing applies here | City: no legislative intent to create a creditor remedy; courts have construed the statute as employee‑focused | Court: No implied private cause for creditors; application of Cort/related principles rejects creditor remedy |
| Effect of City’s post‑judgment conduct (defense without reservation; funding bankruptcy counsel) on availability of statutory indemnity to creditor | Ayers: City’s conduct hindered employees from enforcing indemnity and effectively attempted to defeat judgment; creditor should be able to pursue remedies | City: actions do not convert employee right into creditor’s cause of action | Court: Conduct may be relevant to Ayers’s other claims; but it does not confer statutory standing to enforce R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded the full federal judgment (and fees/costs) against the City under R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) | Ayers: judgment against detectives triggered City’s duty to pay full judgment including fees/costs/interest | City: City not directly liable under statute to third‑party creditor; indemnity duty belongs to employees | Court: Trial court erred to enter statutory indemnification judgment for Ayers; cross‑claims for fees/costs rendered moot by reversal (to be addressed on remand if appropriate under other claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (test for implying private causes of action)
- Taylor v. Academy Iron & Metal Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 149 (standing requires party be within statute's zone of interest)
- New Boston Coke Corp. v. Tyler, 32 Ohio St.3d 216 (legislative designation of enforcement authority limits private suits)
- Fawcett v. G. C. Murphy & Co., 46 Ohio St.2d 245 (courts require clear legislative intent to create private remedy)
- Piro v. Franklin Twp., 102 Ohio App.3d 130 (R.C. 2744.07 obligates indemnification of employees; does not impose direct municipal liability)
- Stengel v. Columbus, 74 Ohio App.3d 608 (indemnitor obligation accrues when employee liability is fixed by judgment)
- Ayers v. Hudson, 623 F.3d 301 (6th Cir.) (holding that Ayers’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated)
- Ayers v. Cleveland, 773 F.3d 161 (6th Cir.) (affirming judgment against detectives)