Stark v. Edwards
2012 Ohio 5142
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Edwards was arrested for OVI and his 1985 Toyota Supra was impounded and towed to Snider's impound lot.
- A November 21, 2011 release order was prepared by Edwards' counsel but did not specify who pays storage fees.
- Edwards refused to pay impound fees, causing continued impoundment.
- February 24, 2012 order split storage costs among the Sheriff’s Office and the Court’s Special Project Fund.
- April 11, 2012 judgment allocated different impoundment costs to the Sheriff, the Court, and Edwards, and the court of appeals ultimately vacated and remanded for the state to pay all expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charging impound fees when not authorized violates 4511.195(D)(4). | Edwards | Edwards argues fees were improperly charged and should be borne by the state for unauthorized impoundment. | Fees not authorized by statute cannot be charged to Edwards. |
| Whether the November 21, 2011 release order affected fee liability. | State | The order did not address fee allocation; thus liability remains unresolved. | The release order alone did not authorize fee shifting; state must pay fees per statute. |
| Whether the sheriff should pay the entire impound fee under 4511.195(B)(3). | State | The court should allocate the fees among agencies as per 4511.195(B)(3). | Statute requires the government entity to bear fees when impoundment is unauthorized. |
| Whether Edwards is responsible for impound costs from November 24, 2011 onward. | State | Edwards should bear post- November 24, 2011 costs per lower court allocations. | Reversed and remanded; the state must pay all expenses incurred in removal and storage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Bank v. Wood, 36 Ohio St.2d 101 (Ohio 1973) (construction of statutory language; mandatory vs. discretionary terms governed by context)
- Henry v. Central National Bank, 16 Ohio St.2d 16 (Ohio 1968) (interpretation to give effect to legislative intent; language governs)
- Columbus–Suburban Coach Lines v. Public Utility Comm, 20 Ohio St.2d 125 (Ohio 1969) (words must be read in context with grammar and usage)
- In re: McClanahan, 2004-Ohio-4113 (Ohio 2004) (statutory interpretation of may vs shall; relevant to construction)