Case Title: State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Montgomery

Citation: 2003-Ohio-6446

Docket Number: 20031009

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Montgomery, 100 Ohio St.3d 343, 2003-Ohio-
6446.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MINISTERIAL DAY CARE ASSOCIATION ET AL., 
APPELLANTS, v. MONTGOMERY, AUDITOR, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Montgomery, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 343, 2003-Ohio-6446.] 
Mandamus sought to compel State Auditor to “decertify, vacate and/or 
otherwise” withdraw her June 22 special audit report involving relator’s 
child-development programs to low-income families in Cuyahoga 
County — Prohibition — Writ sought preventing State Auditor from 
enforcing a September 2002 subpoena requiring relator’s executive 
director to appear and produce for inspection and copying certain 
records — Court of appeals’ dismissal of mandamus and prohibition 
claims affirmed. 
(No. 2003-1009 — Submitted October 20, 2003 — Decided December 24, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos. 81762 and 81895, 
2003-Ohio-5635. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant Ministerial Day Care Association (“Ministerial”) is a 
nonprofit organization that receives federal and state funds to provide child-
development programs to low-income families in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  
Appellant Verneda Bentley is Ministerial’s Executive Director. 
{¶2} 
In September 2000, the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) 
requested that appellee, the State Auditor, perform a special audit of Ministerial.  
ODE asked that the State Auditor review Ministerial’s Head Start enrollment 
rosters for fiscal year 1998 and Ministerial’s purchase of computer equipment and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
software.  In October 2000, the State Auditor’s Office began its special audit of 
Ministerial. 
{¶3} 
In June 2002, the State Auditor issued a special audit report.  The 
Auditor determined that Ministerial had received funding for more children than it 
could verify were enrolled in its Head Start program for 1997-1998.  The Auditor 
further determined that Ministerial had failed to pay private providers all of the 
funds to which they were entitled and that payments for furniture and computer 
equipment were not properly authorized.  The Auditor issued findings for 
recovery against Ministerial for these violations of over $3 million. 
{¶4} 
In September 2002, the State Auditor subpoenaed Bentley to 
appear and produce for inspection and copying certain records, including 
Ministerial’s Head Start enrollment and attendance lists for its 1998-1999, 1999-
2000, and 2000-2001. 
{¶5} 
On September 12, 2002, Ministerial filed a complaint in the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the 
State Auditor to “decertify, vacate and/or otherwise withdraw” the June 2002 
special audit report.  Ministerial alleged that the State Auditor’s Office had 
abused its discretion and had clearly disregarded applicable law in conducting the 
audit. 
{¶6} 
In October 2002, Bentley filed a complaint in the court of appeals.  
Bentley requested a writ of prohibition to prevent the State Auditor from 
enforcing the September 2002 subpoena.  The court of appeals consolidated the 
mandamus and prohibition cases. 
{¶7} 
Based on the audit report, in December 2002, ODE filed a 
complaint in the common pleas court pursuant to R.C. 117.281 to recover the 
illegally expended money from Ministerial. 
                                                 
1. 
{¶a} 
R.C. 117.28 authorizes civil actions to recover public monies found to have been 
illegally expended in a State Auditor’s report: 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶8} 
In April 2003, the court of appeals granted the Auditor’s motions 
and dismissed the mandamus and prohibition claims. 
{¶9} 
The cause is now before us upon Ministerial and Bentley’s appeal 
as of right. 
Mandamus 
{¶10} Ministerial asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing its 
mandamus claim to compel the Auditor to decertify, vacate, or withdraw the June 
2002 special audit report.  The court of appeals correctly dismissed Ministerial’s 
mandamus claim.  A writ of mandamus will not issue if there is a plain and 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Fogle v. Carlisle, 
99 Ohio St.3d 46, 2003-Ohio-2460, 788 N.E.2d 1060, ¶ 9; R.C. 2731.05. 
{¶11} Insofar as Ministerial claimed in its complaint that it suffered 
damage because the special audit “effectively operate[d] as authorization for the 
State of Ohio * * * to institute civil legal action against [Ministerial] within 120 
days of the date of the certification” of the audit report, it has an adequate remedy 
in the ordinary course of law by challenging the audit report in ODE’s pending 
R.C. 117.28 action.  Ministerial asserts that this remedy is inadequate because 
under R.C. 117.36, the report constitutes prima facie evidence in an R.C. 117.28 
action.  But Ministerial can still rebut this evidence in the civil action.  See State 
ex rel. Holcomb v. Walton (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 751, 754, 586 N.E.2d 176 
(“Prima facie evidence is that which is sufficient to carry the case to the trier of 
fact and, if unrebutted, to support a conclusion in favor of the plaintiff”).  
(Emphasis added.) 
                                                                                                                                     
 
{¶b} 
“Where an audit report sets forth that any public money has been illegally 
expended, or that any public money collected has not been accounted for, or that any public 
money due has not been collected, or that any public property has been converted or 
misappropriated, the officer receiving the certified copy of the report pursuant to section 117.27 of 
the Revised Code may, within one hundred twenty days after receiving the report, institute civil 
action in the proper court in the name of the public office to which the public money is due or the 
public property belongs for the recovery of the money or property and prosecute the action to final 
determination.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶12} This remedy provides complete, beneficial, and speedy relief to 
Ministerial and thus precludes the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. 
Prohibition 
{¶13} Bentley challenges the court of appeals’ dismissal of her 
prohibition claim on the grounds that the State Auditor lacks authority to issue 
subpoenas in this circumstance.  Bentley’s claim lacks merit.  In general, absent a 
patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, the entity exercising judicial or 
quasi-judicial authority can be challenged in the ordinary course of law rather 
than by extraordinary relief in prohibition.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Hunter v. 
Summit Cty. Human Resource Comm. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 450, 451, 692 N.E.2d 
185; State ex rel. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 98 Ohio St.3d 395, 2003-Ohio-1630, 
786 N.E.2d 39, ¶ 8. 
{¶14} The State Auditor had statutory authority to issue and serve 
subpoenas in connection with its special audits of Ministerial.  See R.C. 
117.18(A).  “[T]he State Auditor has broad investigatory powers, and after the 
facts and circumstances surrounding the [questioned] expenditure have been fully 
developed, the duty to determine whether public monies have been expended 
illegally.”  Petro v. N. Coast Villas Ltd. (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 93, 97, 735 
N.E.2d 985.  The State Auditor’s statutory subpoena power is in furtherance of 
this duty.  Id. 
{¶15} The State Auditor had completed an audit of Ministerial that found 
more than $3 million in funds illegally received by Ministerial.  The Auditor was 
authorized to conduct a further audit of succeeding program years and to 
subpoena pertinent records from Bentley for those years. 
{¶16} Therefore, the Auditor did not patently and unambiguously lack 
jurisdiction to issue the subpoena to Bentley, and Bentley has an adequate legal 
remedy by way of the Auditor’s pending common pleas court action.  In that case, 
Bentley can raise her claims challenging the subpoena by moving to quash the 
January Term, 2003 
5 
subpoena or moving for a protective order.  State ex rel. Uguru v. Palaibis, 
Cuyahoga App. No. 81061, 2002-Ohio-2264, 2002 WL 984794.  Bentley was not 
entitled to the requested writ of prohibition. 
Conclusion 
{¶17} Based on the foregoing, Ministerial and Bentley have adequate 
legal remedies that preclude their entitlement to writs of mandamus and 
prohibition.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co., L.P.A., Larry W. Zukerman and S. 
Michael Lear, for appellants. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Sharon A. Jennings, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
__________________