2022 Ohio 211
Ohio2022Background
- Relator Timothy J. Grendell, Geauga County Common Pleas judge (juvenile and probate divisions), sought a writ of mandamus after County Auditor Charles E. Walder refused to issue warrants to pay five categories of court-ordered expenditures: robocalls, newspaper ads, website upgrades, mileage reimbursements, and publication fees.
- The dispute arose partly before and partly after the General Assembly amended R.C. 319.16 (effective Apr. 7, 2021), which now requires auditors to issue warrants on presentation of a proper court order and, if questioning validity, to issue the warrant under protest and notify the auditor of state.
- Judge Grendell relied on statutory authority for the expenditures: R.C. 2303.201(E)(1) (special-projects/community-service fees), R.C. 2151.541 and 2101.162 (computerization fees), and the court’s own travel-reimbursement policy and Juv.R. 16 (publication by newspaper).
- Walder declined payment for various reasons (statements in communications about funding sources, alleged lack of auditor’s certificate under R.C. 5705.41, missing contract/certification, IRS-related concerns about mileage, and encumbrance timing for publication fees).
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that the current version of R.C. 319.16 applies prospectively to the resubmitted orders, concluded the contested expenditures were valid under controlling statutes or court policy, and granted a writ of mandamus ordering Walder to issue the warrants; it also granted leave to file a supplemental affidavit about fee increases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grendell) | Defendant's Argument (Walder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Separation of powers — did auditor’s refusal unconstitutionally impair court operations? | Auditor’s refusals interfered with courts’ inherent power to obtain reasonable funds. | Auditor’s statutory duties constrain him; no demonstrated constitutional defect in R.C. 319.16. | No separation-of-powers violation; relator must follow statutory process and failed to show a constitutional defect in R.C. 319.16. |
| Which version of R.C. 319.16 applies (retroactivity/prospective application)? | The amended statute is procedural and thus applies to proceedings after its adoption (prospective application to resubmitted orders). | Former statute should control because expenditures arose earlier and amendment lacks explicit retrospective language. | The court applied EPI of Cleveland and held the current statute applies to the resubmitted orders (procedural change; prospective effect). |
| Robocalls & newspaper advertisements — must auditor issue warrants for special-projects/community-service expenses? | These communications were community-service special projects under R.C. 2303.201(E) and Court’s orders were proper. | Content and funding statements made the expenditures improper; auditor may withhold payment. | Orders were proper; R.C. 319.16(A)(2) required issuance of warrants. Writ granted. |
| Website upgrades — effect of R.C. 5705.41 certificate requirement and computerization statutes? | Upgrades qualify under juvenile/probate computerization statutes (R.C. 2151.541, 2101.162); orders were proper. | Payments void without auditor’s certificate under R.C. 5705.41(D)(1); contract lacked prior auditor certification. | Geauga courts are not shown to be a "subdivision or taxing unit" for R.C. 5705.41; orders valid under computerization statutes. Writ granted. |
| Mileage reimbursements — must auditor issue warrants for travel reimbursements? | Reimbursements comply with the courts’ travel-reimbursement policy and were ordered by the judge. | Some mileage may contravene IRS standards or lack evidentiary matter; auditor may question validity. | Under current R.C. 319.16(A)(2), the court orders were proper; auditor must issue warrants (statutory protest procedure rather than withholding). Writ granted. |
| Publication fees (timing of encumbrance) — did failure to obtain pre-existing encumbrance bar payment under R.C. 5705.41? | Publication was required by Juv.R. 16 and routinely prepaid by court then reimbursed by parties; order was proper. | Publication preceded encumbrance date; R.C. 5705.41 requires certificate/encumbrance then-and-now or preexisting encumbrance. | Auditor failed to show the courts are subject to R.C. 5705.41 as a "subdivision or taxing unit," so the encumbrance argument fails. Writ granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Maloney v. Sherlock, 100 Ohio St.3d 77 (2003) (common pleas courts have inherent power to order reasonable and necessary funding for court administration)
- EPI of Cleveland, Inc. v. Limbach, 42 Ohio St.3d 103 (1989) (procedural statutory amendments may apply to proceedings conducted after their adoption)
- State ex rel. O’Diam v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 161 Ohio St.3d 242 (2020) (courts must follow a statutory process to resolve funding disputes unless statute is constitutionally defective)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (elements for extraordinary relief by mandamus)
- State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (1998) (auditor has limited statutory authority to question the validity of expenditures)
- State ex rel. St. Marys v. Auglaize Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 387 (2007) (purpose of R.C. 5705.41 auditor-certificate requirement is to prevent reckless expenditure and unauthorized obligations)
- State ex rel. Howard v. Turner, 156 Ohio St.3d 285 (2019) (statutory use of "shall" imposes a mandatory duty)