State ex rel. Patrick Bros., A Gen. Partnership v. Putnam Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
2014 Ohio 2717
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Putnam County Commissioners (the Board) planned a long-running Road 5 widening project; engineers and consultants prepared plans and appraisals beginning in the 1990s–2000s.
- In 2011–2012 the county engaged acquisition agents who notified and approached landowners about buying property; many owners claim they first learned of the project then and felt pressured.
- Commissioners held multiple meetings in early 2012 (including Feb. 24 and Apr. 5) that led to resolutions appropriating land before the Board adopted a formal resolution finding the widening necessary (which occurred July 12, 2012).
- The Board had no written public-notice rule before Aug. 30, 2012: public notice was largely a dry-erase whiteboard in the commissioners’ office and an inconsistent online calendar; there was also an unwritten, informal practice for “specific notice.”
- Plaintiffs (landowners and Buckeye Stave) sued for declaratory relief, injunction and mandamus under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22) and related statutes, alleging failures in notice, minutes, improper executive sessions, and procedural defects in authorizing appropriation.
- Trial court denied injunctive relief and found the Board’s later resolutions cured alleged defects; the court also found commissioners immune. The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board violated R.C. 121.22(F) by lacking a written rule for reasonable and specific notice | Board relied on an unreadable office whiteboard and informal calls; no written rule; this violated statutory notice requirements | Longstanding custom and postings (whiteboard, website) sufficed; some media/owners were notified | Court: violation as a matter of law; no adequate written method and informal specific-notice practice failed; injunction relief mandated under R.C. 121.22(I) |
| Whether Board kept full, accurate minutes as required by R.C. 121.22(C) and R.C. 305.10 | Minutes were incomplete, relied on separate unapproved “discussion notes”; some meetings lacked any minutes | Minutes book and resolution records reflect official actions; discussion notes are public records | Court: minutes for several meetings (e.g., Feb. 10, Feb. 17, July 12) were insufficient; statutory requirement for full, accurate minutes not met |
| Whether Board improperly used executive session exceptions under R.C. 121.22(G) | Executive sessions were used to discuss personnel restructuring and economic development—purposes not authorized or not properly recorded | Sessions concerned permissible subjects (e.g., land matters) or otherwise lawful | Court: some executive sessions improperly used or inadequately described; violations shown |
| Whether Board validly authorized widening / appropriations under R.C. Chapters 5553 / 5555 and 163 (vote, procedures, timing) | Board appropriated property before adopting required resolution declaring the improvement necessary; statutes require specific procedures (plans filed, hearings, unanimous vote under 5555.06 when no petition) | The Board relied on general authority under R.C. 163 and later ratified actions; different chapters govern and authorize actions | Court: Board failed to follow statutory sequence (plans/hearings/resolution) and unanimity requirement in applicable statute; authorization was defective; remand for remedy determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Garano v. State, 37 Ohio St.3d 171 (Ohio 1988) (standard for granting injunction; injunction is extraordinary equitable relief)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (Ohio 2012) (appellate standard for review of declaratory-judgment matters; legal questions de novo)
- Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn., 147 Ohio App.3d 268 (Ohio Ct. App.) (public-body notice rule required and injunction remedy mandated under R.C. 121.22)
- Vermilion Teachers’ Assn. v. Vermilion Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 98 Ohio App.3d 524 (Ohio Ct. App.) (Sunshine Act violations require remedy even for technical defects)
- White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 76 Ohio St.3d 416 (Ohio 1996) (minutes must contain sufficient facts to let public understand rationale for decisions)
- State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2001) (minutes are those approved as minutes; separate unapproved documents do not satisfy minutes requirement)
- Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Chillicothe City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 41 Ohio App.3d 218 (Ohio Ct. App.) (executive-session exceptions narrowly construed)
- D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health, 96 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2002) (statutes in pari materia should be read together to effectuate legislative intent)