2013 Ohio 4713
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Alexxus Paige transferred from Withrow HS to Winton Woods HS after her mother moved residence; both schools are OHSAA members.
- OHSAA Bylaw 4-7-2 bars post‑9th‑grade transfers from playing for one year unless an exception applies; Exception One restores eligibility for a bona fide parental residence change by both parents (with limited waivers).
- OHSAA denied Paige’s Exception One claim, concluding the move was athletically motivated; the OHSAA Appeals Panel affirmed.
- Paige obtained a trial‑court preliminary injunction enjoining OHSAA from enforcing Bylaw 4‑7‑2 against her and from taking adverse action against Paige or nonparty Winton Woods; Winton Woods was never made a party.
- On appeal, OHSAA argued the injunction should be reversed; Paige moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because she graduated and the season ended.
- The appellate majority dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the portion of the injunction restraining OHSAA from acting against Winton Woods (lack of party), while certifying a conflict question to the Ohio Supreme Court; one judge dissented, arguing the dispute over retroactive sanctions preserved a live controversy and would reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot now that Paige graduated and the season ended? | Paige: Yes — no live controversy remains because she will no longer play. | OHSAA: No — injunction also barred OHSAA from imposing retroactive sanctions under Bylaw 11‑1‑4, so a live dispute remains. | Majority: Moot — Paige graduated, has no present interest in relief; sanctions against nonparty Winton Woods are speculative and Winton Woods is not before the court. Dissent: Not moot — risk of erasing individual/team records preserves live controversy. |
| Could trial court enjoin OHSAA from sanctioning Winton Woods when the school was not a party? | Paige: Injunction appropriate as requested. | OHSAA: Trial court lacked authority to enjoin actions against a nonparty without notice/joinder. | Majority: Vacated that portion of injunction as the school was never a party; trial court lacked authority. |
| Was the OHSAA Appeals Panel’s finding (move was athletically motivated) arbitrary, fraudulent, or mistaken such that deference should be displaced? | Paige: Trial court found Panel’s decision arbitrary/fraudulent and that Paige likely would prevail. | OHSAA: Panel’s decision was supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence and is entitled to deference absent fraud/mistake/arbitrariness. | Dissent (would reach merits): Panel’s decision should be upheld; trial court erred by substituting its credibility findings and conducting de novo review. Majority did not reach merits due to mootness. |
| Did Paige receive adequate procedural due process in the OHSAA appeals process? | Paige: Trial court found due‑process violation (no subpoena/cross‑examination) supporting injunction. | OHSAA: Athletic participation is not a protected property interest; even if process applied, Paige had notice, an opportunity to be heard, evidence, and to respond. | Dissent (would reach merits): OHSAA’s procedures were adequate; trial court erred. Majority did not decide merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 748 (2010) (actual controversy requirement for justiciability)
- Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (1970) (courts should avoid advisory opinions and only address live controversies)
- Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Assn., 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 1995) (injunction allowing season participation becomes moot after season; retroactive sanctions may preserve controversy)
- McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Assn., 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing mootness for participation relief vs. ongoing dispute over retroactive sanctions and records)
- Ulliman v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn., 184 Ohio App.3d 52 (2d Dist. 2009) (held appeal not moot where injunction barred OHSAA from sanctioning school; conflict with this panel’s mootness holding)