Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm.
2017 Ohio 7524
Ohio Ct. Cl. Hist.2017Background
- Wood Electric sued the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission in the Court of Claims; the Court ruled for Wood Electric on August 12, 2016 and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed on May 9, 2017.
- After the appeal, Wood Electric moved for costs, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest; OFCC opposed and moved to strike Wood Electric’s reply brief. The Court allowed the reply and denied the motion to strike.
- Wood Electric sought $11,942.50 in costs (filing fee, trial transcript, deposition transcripts, exhibit copying). The Court allowed the filing fee ($25.00) and trial transcript ($2,871.30) but disallowed deposition transcript and exhibit copying costs as not statutorily taxable.
- For prejudgment interest, Wood Electric sought interest from the date of substantial completion (August 24, 2014) through May 9, 2017; the Court held prejudgment interest is available under R.C. 2743.18(A) but runs from the Court of Claims’ judgment date (August 12, 2016) and awarded $15,012.72.
- For post-judgment interest, the Court held interest under R.C. 2743.18(B)(2) accrues from the Court of Claims’ entry (August 12, 2016) and set applicable per-day rates ($20.88/day for 2016, $27.84/day for 2017).
- Final award: judgment of $254,027 plus $2,896.30 in taxable costs, $15,012.72 prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest to be calculated per the entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taxable costs: Are deposition transcripts and exhibit copying taxable? | Deposition transcripts and copying are taxable under R.C. 2746.01(G) / 2303.21. | Costs must be statutorily authorized; photocopying and non-introduced depositions are not taxable. | Allowed filing fee and trial transcript; disallowed deposition transcripts and exhibit copying as not taxable. |
| Standard for taxing deposition costs | Deposition costs are recoverable if vital to litigation or used at trial. | Same factual contention but argued against entitlement here. | Depositions were not introduced at trial; therefore deposition transcription costs denied. |
| Prejudgment interest: When does it run and what rate? | Interest from substantial completion (Aug 24, 2014) through appellate affirmance (May 9, 2017) at contract/statutory rates. | Too late to seek prejudgment interest; court never made a factual finding on completion date or rates. | Prejudgment interest allowed under R.C. 2743.18(A) but runs from Court of Claims decision (Aug 12, 2016) using contracted statutory rate; awarded $15,012.72. |
| Post-judgment interest: When does it begin and what rate applies? | Post-judgment interest should run from appellate decision at the statutory daily rate claimed. | Post-judgment interest timing and rate disputed. | Post-judgment interest runs from Court of Claims’ entry (Aug 12, 2016) under R.C. 2743.18(B)(2); daily rates set ($20.88/day for 2016; $27.84/day for 2017). |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Toth v. Industrial Comm’n, 80 Ohio St.3d 360 (1997) (costs are limited to statutory authorization; photocopying expenses denied)
- Jones v. Olcese, 75 Ohio App.3d 34 (1991) (depositions may be taxed as costs when vital to litigation)
- Barrett v. Singer Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 7 (1991) (allow deposition cost when used at trial as evidence)
- Moore v. General Motors Corp., Terex Div., 18 Ohio St.3d 259 (1985) (transcribing/reporting costs for depositions not recoverable unless deposition introduced)