State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar
129 Ohio St. 3d 240
Ohio2011Background
- Zeigler was Stark County treasurer elected in 2008; his deputy Frustaci allegedly stole nearly $3 million from the treasury.
- Special audit found a $2,964,560 shortage due to unauthorized withdrawals; Frustaci pleaded guilty to related charges.
- Prosecutor sought recovery under R.C. 321.37; Zeigler was advised he could be personally liable and a civil suit could ensue.
- Board of commissioners initiated removal proceedings under R.C. 321.38; Zeigler challenged this as unconstitutional and sought to maintain office.
- The board held a hearing and ultimately removed Zeigler under R.C. 321.38; Deputy Allbritain became acting treasurer.
- Zeigler filed quo warranto to oust Allbritain and reinstate himself; Zumbar later became treasurer after a midterm election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Zeigler's claims ripe (moot) or barred by laches? | Zeigler timely challenged removal; successor removals do not moot the claim. | Multiple successors since removal render the action moot and prejudicial to defense. | Not moot and not barred by laches; timely challenge preserved. |
| Is there an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law? | quo warranto is required as ordinary avenues are inadequate to restore office. | Appeal from the declaratory action or administrative appeals suffice. | Zeigler lacks an adequate ordinary remedy; quo warranto available. |
| Does R.C. 321.38 unconstitutionally allow removal without complaint and hearing under Section 38, Article II? | R.C. 321.38 is facially unconstitutional for lacking complaint/hearing. | Statute permits removal and is consistent with removal authority. | R.C. 321.38 is unconstitutional on its face. |
| If R.C. 321.38 is unconstitutional, can Zeigler be reinstated to the office? | Zeigler is entitled to the office due to unconstitutional removal. | Proceedings were valid; current holder (Zumbar) should remain. | Zeigler entitled to reinstatement; writ of quo warranto granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hoel v. Brown, 105 Ohio St. 479 (1922) (removal statutes without due process violate the constitution)
- State ex rel. Newell v. Jackson, 118 Ohio St.3d 138 (2008) (adequacy of remedies when challenging removal; probationary status context)
- State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384 (2008) (quo warranto remains exclusive remedy to challenge right to office)
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. Hensel, 2 Ohio St.2d 96 (1965) (removal of elected officials requires substantial reasons)
- In re Removal of Sites, 170 Ohio App.3d 272 (2006) (removal statutes should not undermine due process rights)
- State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 164 Ohio St. 142 (1955) (presumption of constitutionality; must show clear incompatibility)
- State ex rel. McArthur v. DeSouza, 65 Ohio St.3d 25 (1992) (administrative appeals require quasi-judicial process for remedy)