604 N.E.2d 775 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1992
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas which granted a writ of mandamus against respondent, Ohio Elections Commission. In this appeal, the commission presents one assignment of error:
"The trial court erred when it imposed the procedural requirements set forth in R.C.
The stipulated and undisputed facts before this court are as follows. Relator Citizens for Responsible State Government is an Ohio political action committee and relator Citizens for Van Meter is an Ohio political campaign committee for Thomas Van Meter. On April 13, 1989, relators filed a complaint in the common pleas court seeking to compel the commission to send them, via certified mail, return receipt requested, a certified copy of the commission's November 21, 1988 decision denying relators' motions for attorney fees. The trial court granted the writ. *291
The administrative decision denying attorney fees arises from the following events. In 1987, the Ohio Secretary of State referred several cases to the commission for investigation of alleged violations of the election laws. One case involved Citizens for Responsible State Government and one case involved Citizens for Van Meter. After investigation, the commission dismissed both cases in May 1988. In September 1988, relators filed motions under R.C.
Nevertheless, relators filed notices of appeal pursuant to R.C.
On April 11, 1989, relators' R.C.
"Whether or not Relator ultimately prevails is irrelevant to the issue here. A party affected by a Decision of an administrative agency should receive notice of that decision in a proper manner, as required by law. Plaintiff-Relator may or may not be entitled to attorney fees, but it is entitled to proper notice of a Decision denying them, so that appeal from that Decision may be properly commenced."
Three requirements must be established to issue a writ of mandamus: (1) relator has a clear legal right to the relief requested; (2) respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the act requested; and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Bergerv. *292 McMonagle (1983),
The trial court's holding appears to be predicated on certain language in Sun Refining Marketing, supra. In that case, the Ohio Supreme Court held in the syllabus that "[t]he fifteen-day appeal period provided in R.C.
In the present case, we must agree with the commission and conclude that the Sun Refining case and the authorities cited therein are not controlling or dispositive. Relators could not be deprived of an appeal by virtue of the commission's noncompliance with any statutory service requirements because there is no appeal in this instance pursuant to R.C.
Our analysis of the commission's arguments must begin with the well-recognized principle that, in absence of constitutional or statutory authority, there is no inherent right to appeal from an order of an administrative agency. Perry Twp. Bd. ofTrustees v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1983),
Here, the commission is not specifically named in R.C.
R.C.
Generally, proceedings before the commission are governed by R.C.
"Upon presentation to the Ohio elections commission of an affidavit of any person, made on personal knowledge and subject to the penalties for perjury, setting forth any failure to comply with or any violation of sections
"If the commission finds a violation, it shall do only one of the following:
"(1) Impose a fine not to exceed the fine specified pursuant to section
"(2) Report its findings to the appropriate prosecuting authority, which shall institute such civil or criminal proceedings as are appropriate;
"(3) Enter a finding that good cause has been shown for the commission not to impose a fine or report its findings to the appropriate prosecuting authority.
"Any person adversely affected by the action of the commission under division (B)(1) of this section may appeal from such action in accordance with section
The last sentence of this section makes it apparent that the only commission action appealable pursuant to R.C.
The general lack of any appeal from commission decisions makes sense because, by and large, the commission acts in an investigatory capacity, much like a prosecutor or grand jury. See Dewine v. Ohio Elections Comm. (1978),
The applicable administrative code rules governing commission procedure directly support our conclusions in this case. Relators' motions for attorney fees were based in part on Ohio Adm. Code
"In any action before the commission, if the allegations of the person who filed the complaint are not proved, the commission may find that the complaint is frivolous and may order the complainant to pay costs. In this event, the complainant may be required to pay such costs of the commission as would be assessed for the same services in a civil action before the court of common pleas. Such costs paid to the commission shall be deposited in the general revenue fund of the state."
Even if this statute authorized attorney fees as costs awardable to private parties, which we seriously doubt, there is no provision for an appeal from the denial of attorney fees and, furthermore, there is no provision requiring certified mail notice of any denial. Nor is there any other applicable rule of administrative procedure in the Administrative Code requiring such service.1 *295
In short, since there is no substantive right to appeal or review in this case whatsoever, it follows that due process was not violated when the commission failed to notify relators of the denial of attorney fees by certified mail. Simply put, relators have no private interest entitled to due process protection. See Mathews v. Eldridge (1976),
Respondent's assignment of error is well taken. Respondent did not have any clear legal duty to perform the act requested. The trial court erred in granting the writ of mandamus in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
JOHN C. YOUNG and TYACK, JJ., concur.