Case Title: State ex rel. Ebbing v. Ricketts

Citation: 2012-Ohio-4699

Docket Number: 2012-0940

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Ebbing v. Ricketts, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4699.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-4699 
THE STATE EX REL. EBBING, APPELLANT, v. RICKETTS,  
FISCAL OFFICER, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Ebbing v. Ricketts,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4699.] 
Quo warranto—Removal of village fiscal officer by mayor with consent of 
council—Civil procedure—Reply to answer need not be allowed 
notwithstanding R.C. 2733.12—Civ.R. 7(A)—Untimely motion for 
dismissal for failure to state a claim treated as motion for judgment on 
pleadings—Stay of discovery within discretion of court—Evidentiary 
hearing required for award of attorney fees under Civ.R. 11. 
(No. 2012-0940—Submitted October 9, 2012—Decided October 17, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, 
No. CA2011-01-009. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph P. Ebbing, appeals from a judgment denying his 
request for a writ of quo warranto to oust appellee, Belinda Ricketts, from the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
office of fiscal officer of the village of New Miami, Ohio, and to reinstate him to 
that office.  Ebbing also contests certain rulings on various motions in the quo 
warranto case and an award of reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred by 
Ricketts in responding to Ebbing’s motion for declaratory judgment.  We affirm 
the judgment denying the writ of quo warranto and most of the challenged rulings 
on various motions in the case, reverse the judgment awarding reasonable 
attorney fees and expenses, and remand the cause for further proceedings. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} In December 2005, the New Miami Village Council ratified the 
mayor’s appointment of Ebbing as the village fiscal officer.  In June 2006, the 
village council confirmed the mayor’s reappointment of Ebbing as the New 
Miami fiscal officer to serve indefinitely.  The resolutions specified that Ebbing’s 
service as fiscal officer “shall be in accordance with Ohio Revised Code 
733.262(D)[,] which provides that the village fiscal officer may be removed 
without cause either by the mayor with the consent of a majority of the members 
of the village legislative authority or by a three-fourths vote of the village 
legislative authority with or without the consent of the mayor.” 
{¶ 3} In January 2008, Patti J. Hanes became mayor of New Miami.  As 
a result of an investigation by the state auditor, Hanes discovered that Ebbing had 
failed to properly perform his duties as village fiscal officer by, among other 
things, authorizing checks that resulted in overpayment to him for holiday 
overtime hours. 
{¶ 4} At a January 17, 2008 village council meeting, the council voted 
four to two to pass a resolution terminating Ebbing’s employment as fiscal officer 
without cause pursuant to the most recent village resolution appointing Ebbing 
and R.C. 733.262.  The village council’s action was precipitated by Mayor 
Hanes’s desire to fire Ebbing.  Following the council’s vote, the mayor advised 
Ebbing that he was done, asked the sheriff’s deputy to escort him from the 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
meeting and out of the building, and changed the locks on Ebbing’s office, 
refusing to let Ebbing return. 
{¶ 5} On February 25, 2008, Mayor Hines appointed appellee, Belinda 
Ricketts, as the new village fiscal officer.  The village council confirmed the 
mayor’s appointment of Ricketts. 
{¶ 6} On January 18, 2011, Ebbing filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Butler County for a writ of quo warranto ousting Ricketts from the 
office of New Miami fiscal officer and reinstating him as village fiscal officer.  
After Ricketts filed a motion for summary judgment and the parties submitted 
evidence, the court of appeals granted Ricketts’s motion and denied the writ.  The 
court of appeals also awarded Ricketts $1,231.93 for reasonable attorney fees and 
expenses incurred by her in responding to Ebbing’s motion for declaratory 
judgment and memorandum in support. 
{¶ 7} This cause is now before the court on Ebbing’s appeal as of right. 
Analysis 
Quo Warranto 
{¶ 8} Quo warranto is the exclusive remedy to litigate the right of a 
person to hold a public office.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson, 131 Ohio 
St.3d 120, 2002-Ohio-57, 961 N.E.2d 187, ¶ 15.  “To be entitled to the writ of quo 
warranto, the relator must establish that the office is being unlawfully held and 
exercised by respondent and that relator is entitled to the office.”  State ex rel. 
Zeigler v. Zumbar, 129 Ohio St.3d 240, 2011-Ohio-2939, 951 N.E.2d 405, ¶ 23. 
{¶ 9} Mayor Hines and the New Miami Village Council fired Ebbing 
without cause pursuant to R.C. 733.262(D), which provides: 
 
 
The village fiscal officer may be removed without cause 
either by the mayor with the consent of a majority of the members 
of the village legislative authority or by a three-fourths vote of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
village legislative authority with or without the consent of the 
mayor. 
 
{¶ 10} Ebbing asserts that because Mayor Hines did not remove him from 
office before the vote of less than three-fourths of the New Miami Village 
Council, he was not properly removed from office pursuant to R.C. 733.262(D). 
{¶ 11} We agree, however, with the court of appeals that Ebbing’s 
assertion relies “upon a distinction without a difference”: 
 
It is not important whether the support of a majority of council 
came before or after the mayor’s decision to terminate; what is 
important is that a majority of council supported the mayor’s 
decision.  Because the mayor and a majority of council supported 
[Ebbing’s] removal, he is not entitled to the office. 
 
{¶ 12} It is uncontroverted that the mayor decided to remove Ebbing as 
village fiscal officer and that a majority of council members approved of that 
decision.  The mayor then effectuated the removal of Ebbing from the office by 
ordering his physical removal from the building, barring his return, and 
appointing Ricketts to the vacant office.  Under these circumstances, the court of 
appeals properly held that Ebbing could not establish either that the office of 
village fiscal officer is being unlawfully held by Ricketts or that Ebbing is entitled 
to the office.  Therefore, the denial of the requested extraordinary relief in quo 
warranto was appropriate. 
Motions to Strike 
{¶ 13} Ebbing claims that the court of appeals erred in its rulings on 
various motions to strike filed by the parties.  The determination of a motion to 
strike is within the court’s broad discretion.  State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10, 2011-Ohio-6009, 959 N.E.2d 524, 
¶ 23.  A court’s ruling on a motion to strike will be not reversed on appeal absent 
an abuse of discretion.  State ex rel. Mora v. Wilkinson, 105 Ohio St.3d 272, 
2005-Ohio-1509, 824 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 10.  A decision constitutes an abuse of 
discretion when it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.  State ex rel. 
Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-5350, 957 N.E.2d 19, ¶ 11.  For 
the reasons that follow, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in its 
challenged rulings on the motions to strike. 
{¶ 14} First, the court of appeals properly denied Ebbing’s motion to 
strike Ricketts’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.  Although the motion was 
untimely because it was filed after Ricketts filed an answer, the court of appeals 
could have treated the motion as a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the 
pleadings.  See Whaley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 92 Ohio St.3d 574, 581, 
752 N.E.2d 267 (2001) (“A Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings 
has been characterized as a belated Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion for failure to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted”); State ex rel. Holloman v. Phillips, 100 
Ohio St.3d 70, 2003-Ohio-5063, 796 N.E.2d 524, ¶ 8, fn. 3 (respondent-appellee’s 
“belated Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion should have been treated as a Civ.R. 12(C) 
motion for judgment on the pleadings”).  And although the motion was ultimately 
denied as lacking merit, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in 
determining that it need not be stricken. 
{¶ 15} Second, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in granting 
Ricketts’s motion to strike Ebbing’s reply to Ricketts’s answer and Ebbing’s 
agreed statement of facts.  Notwithstanding R.C. 2733.12, which allows a plaintiff 
in a quo warranto action to file a reply to an answer, Civ.R. 7(A) specifies that 
“[n]o other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to 
an answer or a third-party answer.”  See State ex rel. Yeagley v. Harden, 68 Ohio 
St.3d 136, 137, 624 N.E.2d 702 (1993) (court applies Rules of Civil Procedure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
quo warranto actions notwithstanding the “archaic pleading references * * * 
contained in R.C. 2733.12”).  And Ebbing’s filing titled “Agreed statement of 
facts and or stipulation of facts” was never agreed to by Ricketts. 
{¶ 16} Third, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying 
Ebbing’s motion to strike Ricketts’s motion for summary judgment, affidavits, 
and exhibits.  Ricketts’s motion was properly filed and supported by Civ.R. 56(C) 
evidence.  As the court of appeals concluded, “[t]he existence of opposing 
affidavits and allegations is not cause for striking a motion for summary 
judgment.” 
{¶ 17} Fourth, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying 
Ebbing’s motion to strike Ricketts’s motion to quash Ebbing’s subpoenas issued 
to current and former village council members and Mayor Hanes, or in the 
alternative, to stay the depositions until a determination of Ricketts’s pending 
motion for summary judgment, and Ebbing’s motion for sanctions against 
Ricketts’s counsel for filing the motion to quash.  Ebbing did not establish that 
Ricketts’s motion was, as he argued in the court of appeals, “impertinent, folly, 
false, and a sham.” 
{¶ 18} Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals’ rulings on the parties’ 
motions to strike.   
Motion to Stay 
{¶ 19} Ebbing next claims that the court of appeals erred in granting 
Ricketts’s motion to stay the depositions noticed by Ebbing until Ricketts’s 
summary-judgment motion was resolved.  Trial court decisions on discovery 
matters like this are generally reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.  
State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012-Ohio-2407, 972 N.E.2d 528, ¶ 17. 
{¶ 20} A review of the pertinent factors supports the court of appeals’ 
stay.  The length of the delay was minimal—less than seven months elapsed from 
the time that the court of appeals granted the stay until the court granted summary 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
judgment.  Ricketts, unlike Ebbing, had neither sought nor been granted any prior 
continuances, and she did not contribute to any delay.  The additional discovery 
requested by Ebbing was unnecessary to resolve Ricketts’s pending summary-
judgment motion.  See State ex rel. Sawyer v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & 
Family Servs., 110 Ohio St.3d 343, 2006-Ohio-4574, 853 N.E.2d 657, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 21} Therefore, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in 
granting the requested stay of discovery pending its resolution of Ricketts’s 
motion for summary judgment.  See Thomson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 
10th Dist. No. 09AP-782, 2010-Ohio-416, ¶ 32 (“A trial court acts within its 
discretion when it grants a stay of discovery pending the resolution of a 
dispositive motion”). 
Motion for Declaratory Judgment 
{¶ 22} Notwithstanding Ebbing’s argument to the contrary, the court of 
appeals acted properly by not granting his motion for declaratory judgment.  
“[C]ourts of appeals lack original jurisdiction over claims for declaratory 
judgment.”  State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, 92 Ohio St.3d 426, 430, 751 
N.E.2d 472 (2001); State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Zelman, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 347, 2003-Ohio-6447, 800 N.E.2d 21, ¶ 22. 
Award of Reasonable Attorney Fees and Expenses 
{¶ 23} Finally, Ebbing asserts that the court of appeals erred in granting 
Ricketts’s request for an award of reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred 
by her in responding to Ebbing’s motion for declaratory judgment and 
memorandum in support and in awarding Ricketts $1,231.93 in fees and expenses.  
Ebbing is incorrect when he claims that Ricketts never requested an award of 
attorney fees and expenses.  She specifically requested such an award pursuant to 
Civ.R. 11 in her motion to strike Ebbing’s motion for declaratory judgment and 
memorandum in support. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 24} Nevertheless, in cases in which Civ.R. 11 sanctions are imposed, 
courts have held that an evidentiary hearing is required.  See generally Bikkani v. 
Lee, 8th Dist. No. 89312, 2008-Ohio-3130, ¶ 31 (“if an arguable basis exists for 
an award of sanctions under Civ.R. 11, a trial court must hold a hearing on the 
motion”); T.M. v. J.H., 6th Dist. Nos. L-10-1014 and L-10-1034, 2011-Ohio-283, 
¶ 98 (“It is an abuse of discretion to award attorney fees [under Civ.R. 11 and 
R.C. 2323.51] without [an evidentiary] hearing”); Burnett v. Burnett, 11th Dist. 
No. 2010-A-0035, 2011-Ohio-2839, ¶ 26. 
{¶ 25} Because Ricketts sought and was granted an award of fees and 
expenses pursuant to Civ.R. 11, the court of appeals erred in imposing sanctions 
under the rule without holding an evidentiary hearing. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 26} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying 
the requested extraordinary relief in quo warranto and its rulings on the parties’ 
motions to strike, Ricketts’s motion to stay discovery, and Ebbing’s motion for 
declaratory judgment.  Because there was no evidentiary hearing, we reverse the 
portion of the judgment of the court of appeals awarding Ricketts $1,231.93 in 
attorney fees and expenses incurred by her in responding to Ebbing’s motion for 
declaratory judgment and memorandum in support, and we remand the cause to 
the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Joseph P. Ebbing, pro se. 
 
Schroeder, Maundrell, Barbiere & Powers, Lawrence E. Barbiere, and 
Scott A. Sollmann, for appellee. 
_____________________