State ex rel. Midview Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm.
2017 Ohio 6928
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Midview Local School District built three elementary schools under the ELPP and later sought state funding for roof defects, asserting those costs should be covered under ELPP or the Classroom Facilities Assistance Program.
- Midview sued the Ohio School Facilities Commission seeking mandamus, declaratory judgment, and equitable restitution; the trial court initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- This court (Midview I) reversed dismissal as to mandamus and declaratory judgment claims but did not decide equitable restitution; case remanded and amended pleadings were filed.
- After multiple rounds of summary-judgment briefing, stays, and an interlocutory-appeal dismissal, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Commission on all counts; Midview appealed.
- The Ninth District affirmed: it found Midview failed to show the Commission had a clear legal duty to fund the roof repairs, preserved procedural rules required for appellate review, and held many assignments moot or forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Midview) | Defendant's Argument (Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commission had a clear legal duty to pay state share for roof defects | Statutes (R.C. 3318.03, .08, .042) impose a duty to contribute funding for defects discovered after project | Statutes give discretion and funding duties apply only to project scope; roofs were not part of the agreed project | Court: No clear legal duty shown; summary judgment for Commission affirmed |
| Whether mandamus was available given alleged discretionary statutory language | Midview: even if discretionary, mandamus lies to remedy abuse of discretion | Commission: statute is discretionary; no duty to compel; and Midview has other remedies | Court: Duty element dispositive; Midview failed to prove a clear duty, so mandamus fails |
| Whether stay of discovery prejudiced Midview's ability to show abuse of discretion under R.C. 3318.042(B)(2) | Midview: stay prevented necessary discovery to prove abuse of discretion | Commission: parties agreed discovery stay; Midview conceded some discretionary language and sought relief on other statutory subsections | Court: No reversible error — Midview agreed to stay and waived arguments; no substantial right affected |
| Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction over equitable restitution claim (law-of-the-case) | Midview: prior appellate decision resolved jurisdiction in its favor for equitable restitution | Commission: prior appeal did not address equitable restitution; trial court’s jurisdictional ruling remained open | Court: Midview I did not address equitable restitution; law-of-the-case does not apply; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41 (1978) (sets three-element mandamus standard: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 (2014) (relator bears clear-and-convincing burden in mandamus)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine and its purpose to bind trial courts to appellate mandates)
- Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes v. Ohio Dep’t of Job & Family Servs., 114 Ohio St.3d 14 (2007) (mandamus may challenge an administrative agency’s discretionary acts when abused)