2019 Ohio 1540
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- ODE reviewed ECOT's enrollment and concluded ECOT owed over $60 million; BOE issued a decision directing repayment.
- ECOT sought judicial review directly in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 119.12 (administrative appeal).
- The trial court dismissed ECOT's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the BOE decision was not subject to R.C. 119.12 review.
- This court initially reversed, finding the word "final" in R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) did not bar an R.C. 119.12 appeal.
- BOE and ODE moved for reconsideration; the panel granted reconsideration and vacated the earlier decision, holding that the word "final" in R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) precludes an R.C. 119.12 appeal and affirming the trial court's dismissal.
- Judge Brunner dissented from the grant of reconsideration and would have denied the motion, defending the original panel’s reliance on Brookwood-related reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term "final" in R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) precludes an R.C. 119.12 administrative appeal of a BOE decision assessing overpayments | ECOT: "final" does not bar R.C. 119.12 review; an adequate judicial check on BOE is required | BOE/ODE: "final" removes R.C. 119.12 jurisdiction; statute lacks an express grant of trial-court jurisdiction | Court on reconsideration: "final" in R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) precludes an R.C. 119.12 appeal; trial court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. School Emps. Retirement Sys. Bd., 39 Ohio App.3d 71 (10th Dist. 1987) (construing "final" agency decisions to preclude R.C. 119.12 appeals)
- State ex rel. Shumway v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 114 Ohio App.3d 280 (10th Dist. 1996) (same interpretation limiting R.C. 119.12 review)
- Brookwood Presbyterian Church v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 127 Ohio St.3d 469 (2010) (where a statute calls a BOE/ODE decision "final" but also expressly grants R.C. 119.12 appeals, the express grant controls; absence of express grant supports preclusion)