Coterel v. Reed
2016 Ohio 7411
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- James Paul Reed, an elected Xenia Township trustee (2010–2014), had a prior friendly relationship with local businessman David Coterel, owner of Buckminn’s D&D Harley Davidson, Kil-Kare racetrack, and Kil-Kare Auto Wrecking.
- Relationship soured after Reed’s wife briefly worked at Kil-Kare; Coterel alleges Reed then threatened and pressured him for money and favors and initiated or encouraged governmental inspections and enforcement actions against Coterel’s businesses.
- Coterel sued Reed individually (Xenia Township not a party) asserting claims including violations of the Corrupt Activities Act (extortion), tortious interference with business relations, defamation, and others; some claims were dismissed or voluntarily dropped; the Sunshine Law claim and public-trust claim are not at issue on appeal.
- Reed moved for summary judgment on the basis of statutory governmental immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744; the trial court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether Reed acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, recklessly/wantonly, or manifestly outside the scope of employment.
- Reed appealed only the denial of immunity (a final appealable order under R.C. 2744.02(C)); the appellate review is limited to whether genuine issues of fact exist on the immunity exceptions in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(a) and (b).
- The appellate court affirmed, holding there are genuine issues of material fact (as to defamation and tortious interference claims) sufficient to defeat statutory-immunity summary judgment and require jury resolution of Reed’s state of mind and scope-of-employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed is entitled to statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 | Reed acted maliciously, in bad faith, recklessly/wantonly or manifestly outside his employment when he allegedly extorted, defamed, and interfered with contractors/businesses | Reed argues he is entitled to immunity as a matter of law; no genuine fact issues on scope or state of mind | Denied: genuine issues of material fact exist on malicious purpose, bad faith, wanton/reckless conduct, and scope-of-employment exceptions; immunity not resolved as matter of law |
| Whether alleged extortion/Corrupt Activities conduct is within scope of employment | Coterel alleges Reed engaged in extortion (criminal) to obtain benefit, so conduct falls outside authorized public duties | Reed contends actions were within role or not proven to be criminal; merits not properly decided on immunity appeal | Court: criminal/extortion-like conduct would not be within proper scope; existence of fact issues precludes summary judgment on immunity |
| Whether alleged defamatory statements by Reed were made with malice or reckless disregard | Coterel points to statements and surrounding conduct showing malice or conscious disregard for truth and harm | Reed contends insufficient evidence of false statements, publication, or injury; merits elements not before immunity review | Court: Record contains evidence from which a jury could find malice, bad faith, or reckless disregard; genuine fact issues exist |
| Whether Reed’s actions ordering contractor to stop work were within his trustee authority | Coterel alleges Reed ordered Slip-Tech to stop work maliciously to harm business | Reed argues trustee powers or coordination with enforcement justify action and no proof of malicious intent | Court: Individual trustee lacks authority to unilaterally enforce/order work stoppage; evidence supports jury finding Reed acted outside scope or with malicious intent; genuine issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (finality of order denying immunity under R.C. 2744.02(C))
- Summerville v. City of Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221 (scope of appellate review limited to immunity denial)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definitions/distinctions among wanton, willful, reckless)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351 (wanton misconduct usually a jury question)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (immunity issue is question of law; de novo review)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (summary judgment: must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80 (presumption of immunity for governmental acts)
- Irving v. Austin, 138 Ohio App.3d 552 (record must be devoid of evidence of wanton/reckless conduct to grant immunity)
- Piro v. Franklin Twp., 102 Ohio App.3d 130 (definition of malicious purpose)