State ex rel. New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm.
2017 Ohio 875
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- New Riegel Local School District entered a 1999 project agreement with the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (the Commission) to build a K–12 school; the cost allocation assigned 11% to New Riegel and 89% to the Commission.
- The Commission issued a certificate of completion for the project in either 2002 or 2004, after which, by statute, the Commission’s ownership interest in the project ceased.
- In January 2015 New Riegel notified the Commission of alleged defects (metal roof and through-wall flashing) and requested the Commission reopen the project and fund repairs; the Commission denied the request.
- New Riegel sued in Seneca County Common Pleas Court seeking mandamus, declaratory judgment, and equitable restitution to compel the Commission to reopen the project and pay its share of repair costs.
- The trial court granted the Commission’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, holding (1) New Riegel’s claim amounted to money damages for which the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction, (2) New Riegel failed to show the Commission had a clear legal duty after issuance of the certificate of completion, and (3) declaratory relief was unwarranted.
- The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding New Riegel did not allege facts establishing a statutory or constitutional duty on the Commission to reopen or fund repairs after project completion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel the Commission to reopen a closed project and fund repairs | New Riegel: statutory scheme (R.C. 3318 provisions and O.A.C. rule) creates a clear duty to maintain a construction fund and reopen to correct post-occupancy defects | Commission: issuance of a certificate of completion terminated its interest and no statute imposes a continuing duty to reopen or fund repairs; mandamus cannot create duties not imposed by law | Held: No. The court found no statutory or constitutional provision creating a clear legal duty to reopen or fund repairs after certification of completion; mandamus unavailable |
| Whether New Riegel lacked an adequate remedy at law (prerequisite for mandamus) | New Riegel: Commission is required to assist; mandamus necessary because other remedies inadequate | Commission: New Riegel has statutory corrective-action procedures and ordinary remedies (claims against contractors); thus mandamus is not appropriate | Held: New Riegel failed to show lack of adequate remedy; corrective procedures and remedies against contractors exist |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction (Court of Claims vs. common pleas) | New Riegel: common pleas could entertain equitable/mandamus/declaratory claims | Commission: claims for money damages fall within the Court of Claims' exclusive jurisdiction | Held: The trial court correctly identified that money-damage aspects belong in Court of Claims; dismissal was appropriate on pleadings |
| Whether declaratory relief was proper to declare Commission acted unlawfully | New Riegel: facts support constitutional/statutory violations warranting declaratory relief | Commission: complaint lacked facts showing constitutional violation or statutory duty; declaratory relief would depend on disputed facts | Held: Declaratory relief denied; complaint lacked factual basis to show violation of law by the Commission |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (2002) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (2007) (plaintiff must show no set of facts entitling recovery to sustain dismissal)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (construe factual allegations in complaint as true on motion to dismiss)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus requires clear legal right, clear legal duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- Davis v. State ex rel. Pecsok, 130 Ohio St. 411 (1936) (mandamus cannot create a legal duty not imposed by legislature)
- State ex rel. Deters v. Wilkinson, 72 Ohio St.3d 54 (1995) (statutory provisions must be shown to create the requisite clear legal right for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Commission, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (extraordinary writs require plain, clear, and convincing proof)