2018 Ohio 217
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- New Miami operated an Automated Speed Enforcement Program (ASEP) using contracted vendor Optotraffic to photograph speeding vehicles and mail Notices of Liability; Optotraffic kept 40% of penalties, New Miami received 60%.
- Plaintiffs (class of motorists who received Notices) challenged ASEP as unconstitutional (depriving municipal-court jurisdiction and "due course of law"), sought injunction and equitable restitution of penalties as unjust enrichment.
- Trial court previously invalidated ASEP and enjoined enforcement; class was certified and appeals followed. The Ohio Supreme Court decided Walker v. Toledo on related municipal authority but did not resolve restitution characterization.
- On remand, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on unjust enrichment (Count 4); trial court granted relief, concluding the claim was equitable restitution and not barred by sovereign immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- New Miami appealed the interlocutory denial of governmental immunity, arguing the restitution claim is actually a legal money-damages claim (seeking to impose liability for due-process injury) and thus barred by sovereign immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count 4 is equitable restitution or legal money damages for R.C. 2744 immunity purposes | Barrow: Claim seeks return of specific penalties wrongfully collected under an unconstitutional ordinance — an equitable restitution claim not subject to sovereign immunity | New Miami: Claim is disguised money-damages/due-process claim imposing personal liability; thus barred by sovereign immunity | Court held the claim is equitable restitution — not barred by R.C. Chapter 2744 immunity |
| Whether funds must remain in government possession or be identifiably segregable for equitable restitution | Barrow: Plaintiffs may trace the benefit; restitution lies even if funds were transferred to vendor or partially forwarded to New Miami | New Miami: Because Optotraffic received and retained part of the funds, New Miami never possessed all the monies, so relief is not equitable restitution | Court held actual continued possession or perfect tracing is not required; restitution may lie despite vendor’s receipt and partial retention |
| Whether demand for pre-judgment interest transforms equitable restitution into legal damages | Barrow: Interest request does not change the essential equitable nature of reclaiming specific wrongfully collected funds | New Miami: Pre-judgment interest converts the claim into a damages action | Court held seeking interest does not convert the equitable restitution claim into a legal damages claim |
| Applicability of contract-based restitution precedent (Cristino/Measles) | Barrow: This is not a contract-based claim; plaintiffs seek return of funds wrongfully collected under an unconstitutional ordinance, analogous to Santos/Ohio Hosp. Assn. | New Miami: Cristino/Measles show restitution tied to contracts is legal, so the claim should be treated as legal restitution | Court distinguished Cristino/Measles (contract cases) and found Santos/Ohio Hosp. Assn. controlling — equitable restitution applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Hosp. Ass'n v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (equitable recovery of specific funds withheld under invalid administrative rule)
- Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (return of funds collected under unconstitutional statute is equitable restitution)
- Cristino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 118 Ohio St.3d 151 (restitution claims for money due under contract are legal remedies)
- Measles v. Indus. Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 458 (restitution claims rooted in contract disputes are actions at law)
- Walker v. Toledo, 143 Ohio St.3d 420 (municipal home-rule authority may permit civil enforcement programs; did not decide restitution characterization)
- Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (restitution: equitable versus legal depends on basis of claim and nature of remedy)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (distinction between damages and specific equitable relief)