State ex rel. Madison Cty. Commrs. v. Madison Cty. Engineer
2016 Ohio 7191
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- The Madison County Engineer (relator) sued the Madison County Board of Commissioners seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Commissioners to appropriate county funds to pay for outside counsel of the engineer’s choosing in a dispute over his official duties and compensation.
- The Madison County Prosecutor, who advises both the engineer and the Commissioners, disclosed a conflict and told the engineer he could retain private counsel but might be responsible for the fees; the prosecutor also offered free representation by prosecutors from Pickaway or Greene Counties.
- No joint application under R.C. 305.14(A) to appoint and pay special counsel was filed with the common pleas court by the prosecutor and Commissioners.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the engineer and denied the Commissioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings; the engineer later died and was replaced, but the litigation continued on the prior ruling.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the prosecutor acted within his discretion in offering alternative county prosecutors at no cost and had no duty to pay the engineer’s privately retained counsel or to appoint counsel chosen by the engineer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator had a clear right to have the Commissioners appropriate funds to pay his chosen outside counsel | Relator argued he was entitled to county-funded counsel to defend his official actions and compensation dispute | Commissioners argued R.C. 309.09 gives the prosecutor the duty to provide legal advice and representation and that relator cannot force payment for counsel of his choice without statutory/judicial approval | Held: Relator had no clear right; prosecutor offered substitute county prosecutors at no cost and was not required to pay relator’s private counsel |
| Whether R.C. 305.14 required appointment/payment of relator’s chosen counsel absent a joint application | Relator relied on the common pleas court’s power to appoint special counsel in appropriate circumstances | Commissioners argued appointment/payment under R.C. 305.14 requires a joint application by prosecutor and commissioners and court approval; none occurred here | Held: R.C. 305.14 did not authorize payment of relator’s privately retained counsel absent the required joint application and court approval |
| Whether Corrigan v. Seminatore compelled appointment/payment of relator’s chosen counsel | Relator relied on Corrigan to argue the common pleas court can appoint/pay counsel when the prosecutor has a conflict | Commissioners distinguished Corrigan: there the prosecutor refused any appointment and opposed counsel; here the prosecutor offered alternative free counsel | Held: Corrigan inapplicable—facts differ because prosecutor did not refuse to provide representation and offered no-cost alternatives |
| Whether trial court should have granted Commissioners’ Civ.R. 12(C) motion (judgment on the pleadings) | Relator argued he was entitled to relief as pleaded and summary judgment was proper | Commissioners argued pleadings and record show no set of facts that would entitle relator to have county pay his chosen private counsel | Held: Trial court erred; appellate court reversed and instructed entry of judgment on the pleadings for the Commissioners |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr., 91 Ohio St.3d 459 (Ohio 2001) (elements required for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392 (Ohio 2015) (relator must prove entitlement to writ by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 111 (Ohio 2010) (special counsel hired under R.C. 305.14 requires common pleas court approval before payment)
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459 (Ohio 1981) (common pleas court may appoint counsel where prosecutor refuses to permit representation and a conflict exists)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standards)
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (Ohio 1996) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact)