Case Title: State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger

Citation: 2011-Ohio-759

Docket Number: 20101655

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-759.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-759 
THE STATE EX REL. VARNAU, APPELLANT, v. WENNINGER, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-759.] 
Previous administrative determinations of the county board of elections did not 
preclude quo warranto action — Court of appeals’ judgment denying writ 
reversed. 
(No. 2010-1655 — Submitted February 1, 2011 — Decided February 23, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Brown County, 
No. CA2009-02-010, 2010-Ohio-3813. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the court of appeals 
denying a writ of quo warranto to oust appellee, Dwayne Wenninger, from the 
office of Sheriff of Brown County and to order that appellant, Dennis J. Varnau, 
be entitled to the office.  Because the court of appeals erred in holding that 
previous administrative determinations of the Brown County Board of Elections 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
precluded the quo warranto action, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause 
to the court of appeals for further proceedings. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Wenninger has been the Brown County Sheriff since January 2001, 
having won elections in 2000, 2004, and 2008.  The board of elections certified 
that he met the applicable qualifications to be a sheriff’s candidate for each of the 
elections, but it never made a decision on the merits of his qualifications 
following a protest contesting his candidacy. 
{¶ 3} In 2004, Sandra Martin protested Wenninger’s candidacy for 
sheriff, but she withdrew the protest. 
{¶ 4} In 2008, Varnau, an independent candidate for sheriff, filed a 
protest against Wenninger’s candidacy for sheriff.  The board of elections denied 
the protest because, among other reasons, it was not “filed by a member of the 
appropriate party.” 
{¶ 5} Varnau then sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board of 
elections to accept as valid the protest he filed against Wenninger’s candidacy.  
The Brown County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the mandamus action 
because, among other reasons, “the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not 
appropriate in that there is a legal remedy at law through a quo warranto action” 
and Varnau’s protest was not “filed by a ‘qualified elector who is a member of the 
same political party as the candidate and who is eligible to vote at the primary 
election for the candidate whose declaration of candidacy the elector objects to,’ 
pursuant to R.C. 3513.05.”  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding:  
“Should Wenninger be elected and take office, [Varnau] has other legal 
remedies.” 
{¶ 6} In February 2009, following the election victory by Wenninger, 
Varnau filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of quo warranto to oust 
Wenninger from the office of sheriff and to place Varnau in that office.  Varnau 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
claimed that because he was the only lawful sheriff’s candidate at the November 
2008 election, he is entitled to the office.  Wenninger moved to dismiss the 
complaint and attached his affidavit to the motion.  The court of appeals 
converted the motion for dismissal to a motion for summary judgment, Varnau 
moved for summary judgment, and the parties submitted evidence. 
{¶ 7} On August 16, 2010, the court of appeals granted Wenninger’s 
motion for summary judgment and denied the writ.  State ex rel. Varnau v. 
Wenninger, Brown App. No. CA2009-02-010, 2010-Ohio-3813, 2010 WL 
3212016. 
{¶ 8} This cause is now before the court upon Varnau’s appeal as of 
right. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 9} “ ‘[Q]uo warranto is the exclusive remedy by which one’s right to 
hold a public office may be litigated.’ ”  State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 Ohio 
St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 20, quoting State ex rel. Battin v. 
Bush (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 236, 238-239, 533 N.E.2d 301.  “For a writ of quo 
warranto to issue, ‘a relator must establish (1) that the office is being unlawfully 
held and exercised by respondent, and (2) that relator is entitled to the office.’ ”  
State ex rel. Newell v. Jackson, 118 Ohio St.3d 138, 2008-Ohio-1965, 886 N.E.2d 
846, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel. Paluf v. Feneli (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 138, 141, 630 
N.E.2d 708. 
{¶ 10} The court of appeals determined that “because the Board 
previously determined [that] Wenninger satisfied the necessary requirements to 
be elected Brown County Sheriff in 2000, 2004, and 2008 as statutorily required 
by R.C. 311.01(F)(2), we find that, based upon the record before us, there is no 
genuine issue of material fact, reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion 
which is adverse to Varnau, and Wenninger is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.”  (Emphasis added.)  Varnau, 2010-Ohio-3813, at ¶ 10.  In essence, the court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
of appeals held that the prior administrative certifications by the board were 
conclusive on the issue whether Wenninger met the applicable sheriff’s 
qualifications and barred Varnau from relitigating the issue. 
{¶ 11} “Res judicata, whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion, 
applies to quasi-judicial administrative proceedings.”  State ex rel. Schachter v. 
Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-1704, 905 
N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 29; State ex rel. Tremmel v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio 
St.3d 452, 2009-Ohio-5773, 917 N.E.2d 792, ¶ 16.  We have defined quasi-
judicial authority as “the power to hear and determine controversies between the 
public and individuals that require a hearing resembling a judicial trial.”  
(Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 
Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908. 
{¶ 12} On three separate occasions, the board of elections certified 
pursuant to R.C. 311.01(F)(2) that Wenninger’s candidacy for sheriff met the 
qualifications in R.C. 311.01(B) and (C).  But this statute did not require the 
board of elections to conduct a hearing resembling a judicial trial in making its 
determination, and there is no evidence that it did so.  “When no statute or other 
pertinent law requires the board of elections to conduct a hearing resembling a 
judicial trial, the board does not exercise quasi-judicial authority regardless of 
whether protests have been filed.”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Wright v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 120 Ohio St.3d 92, 2008-Ohio-5553, 896 N.E.2d 
706, ¶ 8; see also State ex rel. Scherach v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio 
St.3d 245, 2009-Ohio-5349, 915 N.E.2d 647, ¶ 23 (court denies writ of 
prohibition to prevent board of elections from placing candidate on general-
election ballot, in election to fill unexpired term of city law director who had 
resigned, because board did not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority in 
certifying name of candidate to ballot). 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 13} Moreover, although a board of elections does exercise quasi-
judicial authority in denying protests filed pursuant to statute, see, e.g., State ex 
rel. Murray v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 127 Ohio St.3d 280, 2010-Ohio-5846, 
939 N.E.2d 157, ¶ 31, and R.C. 3501.39(A)(2), the protest filed against 
Wenninger in 2004 was withdrawn before the board could exercise its quasi-
judicial authority and the protest filed against him in 2008 by Varnau was denied 
because, among other reasons, Varnau lacked standing under the applicable 
statute to file the protest due to the fact that he was not a member of the same 
political party as Wenninger.  See Zukowski v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 53, 2010-
Ohio-1652, 925 N.E.2d 987, ¶ 9 (Republican Party member lacked standing to 
protest the candidacies of Democratic Party candidates); R.C. 3513.05 (“Protests 
against the candidacy of any person filing a declaration of candidacy for party 
nomination or for election to an office or position, as provided in this section, may 
be filed by any qualified elector who is a member of the same political party as 
the candidate * * *”).  Consequently, the board also did not exercise quasi-judicial 
authority for these protests. 
{¶ 14} Finally, the court of appeals’ reliance on our prior holding that 
“[b]oards of elections are obligated to weigh evidence of a candidate’s 
qualifications, and courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the 
board,” State ex rel. Kelly v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1994), 70 Ohio 
St.3d 413, 414, 639 N.E.2d 78, to support its holding is also misplaced.  Kelly and 
the other cases cited by the court of appeals for this proposition were all cases in 
which the boards of elections conducted quasi-judicial hearings upon properly 
filed protests.  See also State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 176, 685 N.E.2d 502; State ex rel. Herdman v. Franklin 
Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 593, 621 N.E.2d 1204.  That did not 
happen here. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 15} Therefore, the court of appeals erred in holding that the board’s 
previous administrative determinations barred Varnau from challenging 
Wenninger’s qualifications to remain sheriff in his quo warranto case.  These 
determinations were not res judicata as to these issues, because the board did not 
exercise quasi-judicial authority in rendering them. 
{¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals denying the writ of quo warranto.  Because the court of appeals failed to 
address the substance of Varnau’s claim for extraordinary relief based on its 
erroneous rationale, a remand of the cause to that court for further proceedings 
based on the parties’ motions and evidence is appropriate.  See, e.g., State ex rel. 
Sawicki v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 121 Ohio St.3d 507, 2009-Ohio-
1523, 905 N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 32.  We deny appellant’s request for oral argument. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas G. Eagle Co., L.P.A., and Thomas G. Eagle, for appellant. 
 
Gary A. Rosenhoffer, L.L.C., and Gary A. Rosenhoffer; and Patrick L. 
Gregory, for appellee. 
______________________