Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller

Citation: 2004-Ohio-2895

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-2895.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. NELLER. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-2895.] 
Civil procedure — Unsworn written statements that are signed under penalty of 
perjury may not be substituted for affidavits in Ohio. 
(No. 2002-1775—Submitted May 26, 2004—Decided June 23, 2004.) 
ON SUA SPONTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This case presents the question whether unsworn written 
statements that are signed under penalty of perjury may be substituted for 
affidavits in Ohio.  We conclude that they may not. 
{¶ 2} Last year, we permanently disbarred Toledo attorney Richard M. 
Neller.  See Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 98 Ohio St.3d 314, 2003-Ohio-774, 784 
N.E.2d 689.  In accordance with that disbarment order, we directed Neller to take 
various steps to terminate his law practice.  Included in this court’s March 5, 2003 
order to Neller is this language: 
{¶ 3} “It is further ordered that * * * respondent shall: 
{¶ 4} “ * * *  
{¶ 5} “6.  File with the Clerk and the Disciplinary Counsel * * * an 
affidavit showing compliance with this order * * * .”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 6} The quoted language tracks the requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
V(8)(E)(3), which describes the duties of a disbarred or suspended attorney. 
{¶ 7} In response to that order, Neller sent to the Clerk of this court in 
February of this year a signed document that he styled as an “affidavit,” though he 
did not sign it before a notary or any other person authorized to administer oaths.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
In the signed “affidavit,” Neller “states and declares under the penalties of 
perjury” that the statements in the document are “true and correct.” 
{¶ 8} The Clerk’s office initially rejected the document because Neller’s 
signature on it was not notarized.  Neller sent the document back to the Clerk, 
however, insisting that a federal statute recognizes the validity of unsworn 
documents like the one that he prepared.  On February 25, 2004, the Clerk’s 
office accepted and filed the document. 
{¶ 9} We have now examined the question and conclude that the 
document does not comply with this court’s order – and the language in Gov.Bar 
R. V(8)(E)(3) – requiring that an “affidavit” be filed by Neller and any other 
suspended or disbarred attorney in the same situation. 
Ohio Law on Affidavits 
{¶ 10} In Ohio, an affidavit “is a written declaration under oath.”  R.C. 
2319.02.  It “may be made in or out of this state before any person authorized to 
take depositions.”  R.C. 2319.04. 
{¶ 11} Notaries public are of course the persons who most often 
administer the oaths that appear on affidavits.  In Ohio, a “notary public may, 
throughout the state, administer oaths required or authorized by law,” R.C. 
147.07, and “[n]o notary public shall certify to the affidavit of a person without 
administering the appropriate oath or affirmation to the person.”  R.C. 147.14. 
{¶ 12} Anyone who knowingly makes a false statement that is “sworn or 
affirmed before a notary public or another person empowered to administer oaths” 
can be prosecuted under R.C. 2921.13(A)(6) for the first-degree misdemeanor 
crime of falsification, while a knowing and material false statement given in an 
“official proceeding” can lead to a felony prosecution under R.C. 2921.11(A) for 
the crime of perjury. 
A Different Approach Under Federal Law  
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶ 13} Neller points to a federal statute in support of his claim that he 
need not present a sworn affidavit to the Clerk to comply with this court’s order 
and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E)(3).  That federal statute—Section 1746, Title 28, 
U.S.Code—says:  
{¶ 14} “Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, 
regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or 
permitted to be * * * established * * * by the sworn * * * statement, oath, or 
affidavit, in writing of the person making the same * * *, such matter may, with 
like force and effect, be * * * established * * * by the unsworn * * * statement[ ] 
in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of 
perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: 
{¶ 15} “ * * *   
{¶ 16} “(2) If executed within the United States * * * : ‘I declare (or 
certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 
correct.  Executed on (date). 
(Signature).’ ” 
{¶ 17} As Neller suggests, that federal statute is indeed a valid provision, 
and it is cited in a number of other federal statutes and rules.  See, e.g., Section 
1621(2), Title 18, U.S.Code (imposing penalties for perjury on those who make 
material false statements in a document signed “under penalty of perjury as 
permitted under section 1746 of title 28”); U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 29(2) and (5)(c) 
(describing filing and service requirements for documents sent to the Supreme 
Court). 
{¶ 18} And the federal circuit and district courts have readily accepted for 
many years the kinds of documents that Neller has presented to this court.  See, 
e.g., Peters v. Lincoln Elec. Co. (C.A.6, 2002), 285 F.3d 456, 475 (noting that the 
federal statute “allows for ‘unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury’ to 
support any matter that legally requires an affidavit to support it”); Hameed v. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Pundt (S.D.N.Y.1997), 964 F.Supp. 836, 840-841 (citing the federal statute in 
relying on unsworn documents to grant summary judgment). 
{¶ 19} Yet the legislative history of the federal statute indicates that the 
law was designed “to permit the use in Federal proceedings of unsworn 
declarations given under penalty of perjury in lieu of affidavits.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  H.R.Rep. No. 94-1616, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5644.  That legislative 
history tracks the text of the federal statute itself, which allows the use of unsworn 
declarations in lieu of sworn affidavits when affidavits would otherwise be 
required or permitted by “any law of the United States” (emphasis added), or any 
other “rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law.”  Section 
1746, Title 28, U.S.Code.  That language in the statute indicates that Congress 
intended to change federal law but leave the states free to set their own policies 
concerning affidavits. 
{¶ 20} As for the purpose of the federal statute that Congress enacted and 
President Ford signed in 1976, the legislative history explains that “[t]he 
requirement that the person who signs an affidavit must appear before a notary 
and be sworn can be inconvenient.”  H.R.Rep. No. 94-1616, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
5644, 5645.  The law is therefore designed to “provide[ ] an alternative to 
affidavits and sworn documents.”  Id. at 5645. 
{¶ 21} While Congress is certainly entitled to its view that appearing 
before a notary to sign an affidavit is an unnecessary inconvenience, the states 
have by no means universally embraced the idea.  To be sure, several states have 
either adopted the federal statute outright or have enacted statutes that achieve the 
same result.  See, e.g., Fla.Stat.Ann. 92.525 (2004); Nev.Rev.Stat. 53.045 (2001); 
W.Va.Code 39-1-10a (2004).  Ohio, however, has never recognized any exception 
to the statutory requirement that a valid affidavit must be a “written declaration 
under oath.”  R.C. 2319.02. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶ 22} In fact, this court has repeatedly explained—both before and after 
the 1976 enactment of the federal statute—that an “affidavit” must be a sworn 
statement.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 95 Ohio 
St.3d 463, 2002-Ohio-2481, 768 N.E.2d 1176, ¶ 5 (holding that unnotarized 
statements attached to a prisoner’s complaint did not meet the relevant statutory 
affidavit requirement); In re Disqualification of Pokorny (1992), 74 Ohio St.3d 
1238, 657 N.E.2d 1345 (“A paper purporting to be an affidavit, but not to have 
been sworn to before an officer, is not an affidavit”); State ex rel. Coulverson v. 
Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 12, 14, 577 N.E.2d 352 (an “ 
‘affidavit’ * * * not sworn before anyone authorized to give oaths * * * is void”); 
Benedict v. Peters (1898), 58 Ohio St. 527, 536, 51 N.E. 37 (“The general rule is 
that an affidavit must appear on its face to have been taken before the proper 
officer, and in compliance with all legal requisitions”). 
Neller’s “Affidavit” Must Be Stricken 
{¶ 23} When Neller presented to the Clerk of this court an unsworn 
declaration “under the penalties of perjury,” he failed to comply with the court’s 
express order that he provide an “affidavit” to the Clerk.  That directive echoes 
the affidavit requirement imposed on all similarly suspended or disbarred 
attorneys by Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E)(3). 
{¶ 24} Our rejection today of Neller’s filing, and our enforcement instead 
of a strict and traditional reading of the term “affidavit,” is consistent with this 
court’s longstanding insistence that only a written declaration made under oath 
before a proper officer qualifies as an “affidavit.”  Because the General Assembly 
has never done what Congress has done in this area—enact a provision 
recognizing the legal validity of unsworn declarations made under penalty of 
perjury—we cannot accept the “affidavit” that Neller presented to the Clerk in 
February. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 25} For the reasons explained above, the document presented by 
Richard M. Neller and accepted by the Clerk of this court on February 25, 2004, 
is hereby rejected and stricken from this court’s files.  Neller remains bound by 
Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E)(3), as well as this court’s March 5, 2003 order. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR 
and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents.   
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.   
{¶26} I would accept the filing and move on.  This issue is not worthy of 
the paper it has consumed. 
__________________ 
 
Richard Neller, pro se. 
__________________