King v. Divoky
2018 Ohio 2280
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Derrick Martin King received Disability Financial Assistance (DFA) benefits when the Ohio General Assembly eliminated the program via 2017 Am. Sub. H.B. 49 (including R.C. 812.40).
- Summit County Department of Job and Family Services notified King his DFA benefits would end; King sued directors Patricia Divoky and Cynthia Dungey for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- King alleged the repeal violated his federal due process rights, federal and state equal protection, and the Ohio Constitution’s safety clause, and sought to enjoin termination of benefits.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and opposed injunctive relief; the trial court dismissed King’s complaint for “scant factual allegations” and denied injunctive relief and a TRO.
- On appeal, the Ninth District reviewed whether the trial court applied the correct standard for dismissing a declaratory judgment action and whether the dismissal was harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed King’s declaratory judgment complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | King argued his complaint properly raised justiciable constitutional challenges to the statute eliminating DFA and so should not be dismissed | Defendants argued the complaint failed to state a claim; factual allegations were insufficient for relief | Reversed: trial court applied wrong standard for declaratory actions; dismissal was not justified on the pleadings and was not harmless error |
| Standard for dismissing declaratory judgment actions — justiciability requirement | King: R.C. 2721.03 permits parties affected by a statute to seek declaration; dismissal is only proper if no real controversy exists or a judgment would not resolve uncertainty | Defendants: asserted failure to plead sufficient facts supports dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Court held declaratory complaints shouldn’t be dismissed for being incorrect on merits; dismissal only for lack of justiciability or failure to terminate controversy; trial court failed to apply that standard |
| Merits of constitutional claims (due process, equal protection, safety clause) | King asserted repeal violated due process, equal protection, and Ohio safety clause | Defendants asserted the statutory changes were lawful and King’s allegations insufficient | Court found merits questions premature on this appeal; second and third assignments of error overruled as premature and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Weyandt v. Davis, 112 Ohio App.3d 717 (9th Dist. 1996) (declaratory judgment complaints should not be dismissed for being incorrect on the merits; dismissal proper only for nonjusticiability or failure to resolve controversy)
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (Ohio 2012) (appellate standard of review for dismissal of declaratory judgment as not justiciable is abuse of discretion)