State ex rel. Kess v. Antonoplos
2017 Ohio 305
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator James Kess sought a writ of mandamus after the Delaware County Clerk refused to accept for filing his "Objections to the Magistrate’s Decision" allegedly presented on September 22, 2015.
- The only evidence was an affidavit from Jon Krukowski stating he tendered the objections to the clerk and was refused.
- Respondent (Clerk Jan Antonoplos) moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the objections were untimely and thus the clerk had no duty to file them.
- The trial court denied the clerk’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion, finding the pleadings, viewed in Kess’s favor, could support relief.
- The central legal question became whether the clerk had a clear duty to accept the paper for filing (a ministerial duty) versus deciding timeliness (a judicial function).
- The court found no adequate legal remedy and concluded Kess established entitlement to mandamus; it ordered the clerk to accept and docket the objections as filed on September 22, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk must accept a paper presented for filing | Kess: clerk had a duty to accept the objections for filing and note them on the docket | Clerk: objections were untimely, so clerk properly refused to file | Clerk has a ministerial duty to accept papers for filing; timeliness is for the court, not clerk — writ issued |
| Whether clerk may determine propriety/timeliness at filing | Kess: clerk should not decide propriety; refusing denied Kess access to court filing process | Clerk: refusal appropriate if paper is untimely or improper | Court: determination of propriety/timeliness is for the court; clerk cannot refuse on that basis |
| Whether relator proved refusal to accept filing | Kess: submitted uncontroverted affidavit of attempted filing and refusal | Clerk: disputed or denied sufficient proof of refusal | Affidavit uncontroverted; relator met burden to show clerk refused |
| Whether mandamus available as remedy | Kess: no adequate remedy at law; mandamus appropriate to compel ministerial act | Clerk: implied that other remedies or procedural rules could control | Court: mandamus appropriate because clerk had ministerial duty and no adequate remedy at law |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wanamaker v. Miller, 164 Ohio St. 176 (1955) (clerk must accept for filing papers unless scurrilous/obscene or court orders otherwise)
- State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Def. v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 334 (2006) (clerk’s filing duties and limits explained)
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. Miller, 36 Ohio App.3d 208 (1987) (clerk should not refuse filings when propriety is a question of law; refusal should be noted with reason)
- Rhoades v. Harris, 135 Ohio App.3d 555 (2000) (collecting authority that clerk cannot act as gatekeeper on legal questions of filing)