Title: State ex rel. Dayton Law Library Assn. v. White

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Dayton Law Library Assn. v. White, 110 Ohio St.3d 335, 2006-Ohio-4573.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. DAYTON LAW LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE, v. 
WHITE, CLERK, APPELLANT, AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF 
COMMISSIONERS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Dayton Law Library Assn. v. White,  
110 Ohio St.3d 335, 2006-Ohio-4573.] 
Municipal courts — Court costs in unsuccessful prosecutions for violation of state 
law. 
(No. 2006-0042 ─ Submitted June 6, 2006 ─ Decided September 20, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County,  
No. CA 20125, 163 Ohio App.3d 118, 2005-Ohio-4520. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandamus to 
compel a municipal court clerk to pay to a county those fine moneys that had been 
withheld as an offset against unpaid costs incurred in connection with 
unsuccessful state-law prosecutions. 
{¶ 2} In 1977, upon a request by the Montgomery County Prosecuting 
Attorney for an opinion regarding costs for certain state prosecutions in Kettering 
Municipal Court, the Ohio Attorney General issued Opinion No. 77-088, in which 
he concluded: 
{¶ 3} “In an unsuccessful criminal prosecution, brought in a municipal 
court for an alleged violation of state law, fees for witnesses and jurors, and other 
court costs, are to be paid by the county.”  1977 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 77-088, 
syllabus. 
{¶ 4} Since the issuance of that opinion, the Clerk of the Kettering 
Municipal Court has been billing Montgomery County for all court costs related 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
to unsuccessful state-law prosecutions in municipal court.  The Kettering 
Municipal Court is the only court that charges Montgomery County for court 
costs related to unsuccessful state-law prosecutions.  The clerk also remitted to 
the county all fines collected for the successful prosecution of state-law 
violations. 
{¶ 5} In 2001, Kettering Municipal Court Clerk Gerald Busch stopped 
remitting to the county the court costs for successful state-law prosecutions, but 
continued to bill the county for court costs incurred in unsuccessful state-law 
prosecutions.  In November 2001, Montgomery County notified the clerk that it 
would not be paying bills related to court costs for these unsuccessful Kettering 
Municipal Court criminal cases.  In response, in February 2002, the clerk notified 
the county that he would be subtracting the amounts due for court costs regarding 
unsuccessful prosecutions from the state-law fine money.  The clerk based his 
action on 1977 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 77-088. 
{¶ 6} In state-law cases prosecuted in Kettering Municipal Court, the 
clerk charged $45 in court costs for each charge dismissed and for each charge 
upon which the defendant was acquitted.  The $45 in court costs was apportioned 
as follows:  $32 for the complaint, $3 for the court-computerization fund, $5 for 
the clerk-computerization fund, and $5 for the special-projects fund.  The clerk 
later increased court costs to $51 for these unsuccessful state-law prosecutions. 
{¶ 7} In 2002, the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners 
requested that the county prosecutor seek an opinion from the Attorney General 
concerning this issue.  In 2003, the Attorney General concluded: 
{¶ 8} “1.  When a criminal prosecution brought in a municipal court for 
an alleged violation of state law results in the dismissal or acquittal of the 
defendant, the county pays the court costs. 
{¶ 9} “2.  A county must pay any cost or fee assessed against it by a 
municipal court in a criminal prosecution for an alleged violation of state law, 
January Term, 2006 
3 
provided the court is statutorily authorized to assess the cost or fee against the 
county.”  (Emphasis added and citations omitted.)  2003 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 
2003-016, syllabus. 
{¶ 10} After the issuance of this opinion, the county and the city 
conducted various meetings, but the clerk refused to stop making deductions for 
the specified costs from money owed by the municipal court to the county.  From 
April 2001 through March 2005, the Kettering Municipal Court Clerk deducted 
$478,954.21 for court costs incurred in unsuccessful state-law prosecutions in 
municipal court from amounts the court owed to the county.  $7,039.35 of these 
deductions represented costs for witness and bailiff fees. 
{¶ 11} Under R.C. 3375.53, a percentage of fines and penalties for 
violations of liquor-control and state traffic laws collected by each court in the 
county must be paid to the board of trustees of the county law library association.  
The Dayton Law Library Association began receiving an amount less than the 
sum to which it was statutorily entitled because of the Kettering Municipal Court 
Clerk’s deductions in the clerk’s payments to Montgomery County. 
{¶ 12} On September 24, 2003, appellee Dayton Law Library Association 
filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus (1) to compel Kettering Municipal Court 
Clerk Busch to remit to the association or to the Montgomery County Treasury 
for the benefit of the association any sums owed to the association that had been 
withheld by the clerk since May 2003 and (2) to cease and desist from deducting 
money from state-law fines to satisfy unpaid bills sent by the clerk to the county 
and to remit the money from the fines to the county treasury without deduction. 
{¶ 13} Appellant, Kettering Municipal Court Clerk Andrea J. White, who 
succeeded Busch, filed a cross-claim against appellees Montgomery County 
Board of Commissioners and the Montgomery County Treasurer.  The clerk 
requested a writ of mandamus to compel the county to (1) “pay Kettering all court 
costs in ‘unsuccessful’ state law criminal cases that are prosecuted on behalf of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the County in the Kettering Municipal Court,” (2) “account for or give credit to 
Kettering for the payments that Kettering has made to the County by discharging 
indebtedness that the County owes to Kettering for court costs in ‘unsuccessful’ 
state law criminal cases that are prosecuted on behalf of the County in the 
Kettering Municipal Court,” and (3) “base the calculation of the amounts that it 
must pay to the Law Library pursuant to R.C. 3375.53 upon all of the payments 
that Kettering has made to the County pursuant to [various statutes], including 
both:  (1) the payments that Kettering has made to the County by discharging 
indebtedness that the County owes to Kettering for court costs in ‘unsuccessful’ 
state law criminal cases that are prosecuted on behalf of the County in the 
Kettering Municipal Court, and (2) the payments that Kettering has made to the 
County by other methods.”  (Emphasis sic.) 
{¶ 14} The Montgomery County respondents filed a cross-claim for a writ 
of mandamus to compel the clerk to pay them “the court costs for the alleged 
‘unsuccessful’ state law prosecutions that the Clerk has deducted, since February 
of 2002, from state law violation fine money owed to the County Respondents 
and the Relator, the Dayton Law Library Association.”  They also requested a 
writ of prohibition to prevent the clerk from continuing the contested practice. 
{¶ 15} On August 15, 2005, the court of appeals granted the requests by 
the Dayton Law Library Association and the Montgomery County respondents for 
a writ of mandamus directing the Kettering Municipal Court Clerk to pay 
Montgomery County the fine money that had been withheld as an offset against 
unpaid costs incurred in connection with unsuccessful state-law prosecutions.  
State ex rel. Dayton Law Library Assn. v. White, 163 Ohio App.3d 118, 2005-
Ohio-4520, 836 N.E.2d 1232, ¶ 31.  Other issues, however, remained pending.  
Id. at ¶ 32. 
{¶ 16} On November 7, 2005, the court of appeals determined that 
$471,914.86 was the clerk’s fine-money obligation to Montgomery County.  On 
January Term, 2006 
5 
December 9, 2005, the court of appeals entered final judgment in favor of the 
Dayton Law Library Association and the Montgomery County respondents on 
their mandamus claims and found that the Kettering Municipal Court Clerk owed 
the Montgomery County respondents ─ for the partial benefit of the law library 
association ─ $471,914.86 plus postjudgment interest and costs. 
{¶ 17} This case is now before the court upon the clerk’s appeal as of 
right. 
{¶ 18} The Kettering Municipal Court Clerk asserts that the court of 
appeals erred in granting appellees’ requests for writs of mandamus and denying 
her mandamus claim.  In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, appellees had 
to establish a clear legal right to payments from the clerk of the various fines and 
fees collected without any deduction by the clerk for certain court costs related to 
the unsuccessful prosecution of state-law crimes in municipal court, a 
corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the clerk to make those payments, 
and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. 
United Auto, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. v. Ohio Bur. of 
Workers’ Comp., 108 Ohio St.3d 432, 2006-Ohio-1327, 844 N.E.2d 335, ¶ 34. 
{¶ 19} The clerk does not claim that the county is not entitled to various 
fines and costs pursuant to various statutes or that the county has an adequate 
legal remedy that would preclude extraordinary relief in mandamus.  Instead, the 
clerk asserts that she is entitled to deduct from the fees and costs due the county 
the costs associated with the unsuccessful prosecution of state-law crimes in 
municipal court.  The clerk contends that this authority arises from the patent and 
unambiguous language of R.C. 1901.26 and 1901.261.  More specifically, the 
clerk asserts that these provisions authorize the municipal court to assess 
complaint fees and fees to support the court-computerization fund, the clerk-
computerization fund, and the special-projects fund to the county in unsuccessful 
prosecutions of state-law charges in municipal court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 20} R.C. 1901.26 provides: 
{¶ 21} “(A)  * * * [C]osts in a municipal court shall be fixed and taxed as 
follows: 
{¶ 22} “(1)(a)  The municipal court * * * by rule, shall establish a 
schedule of fees and costs to be taxed in any civil or criminal action or 
proceeding. 
{¶ 23} “* * * 
{¶ 24} “(B)(1) The municipal court may determine that, for the efficient 
operation of the court, additional funds are necessary to acquire and pay for 
special projects of the court including, but not limited to, the acquisition of 
additional facilities or the rehabilitation of existing facilities, the acquisition of 
equipment, the hiring and training of staff, community service programs, 
mediation or dispute resolution services, the employment of magistrates, the 
training and education of judges, acting judges, and magistrates, and other related 
services.  Upon that determination, the court by rule may charge a fee, in addition 
to all other court costs, on the filing of each criminal cause, civil action or 
proceeding, or judgment by confession.” 
{¶ 25} R.C. 1901.261 provides: 
{¶ 26} “(A)(1)  A municipal court may determine that for the efficient 
operation of the court additional funds are required to computerize the court, to 
make available computerized legal research services, or to do both.  Upon making 
a determination that additional funds are required for either or both of those 
purposes, the court shall include in its schedule of fees and costs under section 
1901.26 of the Revised Code one additional fee not to exceed three dollars on the 
filing of each cause of action or appeal * * * and shall direct the clerk of the court 
to charge the fee.” 
{¶ 27} “* * * 
January Term, 2006 
7 
{¶ 28} “(B)(1) A municipal court may determine that, for the efficient 
operation of the court, additional funds are required to computerize the office of 
the clerk of the court and, upon that determination, may include in its schedule of 
fees and costs under section 1901.26 of the Revised Code an additional fee not to 
exceed ten dollars on the filing of each cause of action or appeal * * *.” 
{¶ 29} Our paramount concern is legislative intent in interpreting R.C. 
1901.26 and 1901.261.  State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 395, 2003-Ohio-1630, 786 N.E.2d 39, ¶ 12.  To determine this intent, we 
read words and phrases in context according to the rules of grammar and common 
usage.  R.C. 1.42.  If, as the municipal court clerk contends, these provisions 
patently and unambiguously require the county to pay the specified court costs for 
unsuccessful state-law prosecutions in municipal court, we must apply the statutes 
as written instead of resorting to further interpretation.  See, e.g., State ex rel. 
Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio-
5642, 841 N.E.2d 757, ¶ 28, quoting BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States (2004), 
541 U.S. 176, 183, 124 S.Ct. 1587, 158 L.Ed.2d 338 (“ ‘our inquiry begins with 
the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is unambiguous’ ”). 
{¶ 30} For the following reasons, however, R.C. 1901.26 and 1901.261 do 
not unambiguously require the county to pay these costs in unsuccessful state-law 
prosecutions. 
{¶ 31} First, although R.C. 1901.26(B)(1) generally authorizes court costs 
for special-projects funds and R.C. 1901.261(A)(1) and (B)(1) authorize court 
costs for court-computerization and clerk-computerization funds, there is no 
specific authorization in either statute for the municipal court’s complaint fee in 
criminal cases. 
{¶ 32} Second, R.C. 1901.26 and 1901.261 do not specify that these costs 
are to be paid by the county. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 33} Third, when the General Assembly has chosen to charge the 
county with municipal court costs, it has done so with specific language.  See 
R.C. 1901.25 (“The fees of jurors in any criminal case [in municipal court] 
involving the violation of state law shall be paid out of the county treasury”); R.C. 
1901.26(A)(4) (“In any civil or criminal action or proceeding, witnesses’ fees 
shall be fixed in accordance with sections 2335.06 and 2335.08 of the Revised 
Code”); R.C. 2335.08 (“When certified to the county auditor by the clerk of the 
court, such fees shall be paid from the county treasury, and except as to the grand 
jury, taxed in the bill of costs”); R.C. 2335.12 (“In all state cases, any wholly 
salaried minor court officer, charged with the execution of a warrant to arrest or 
order of commitment, shall receive from the county treasury the actual necessary 
expense of executing such writs * * *”). 
{¶ 34} Consequently, further interpretation is appropriate.  To be sure, the 
municipal court appears authorized to charge costs to the losing party.  See R.C. 
1901.26(A)(7) (“The municipal court, as it determines, may refund all deposits 
and advance payments of fees and costs, including those for jurors and 
summoning jurors, when they have been paid by the losing party”).  In 
unsuccessful state-law prosecutions in municipal court, however, the losing party 
is technically the state and not the county. 
{¶ 35} Moreover, as the court of appeals cogently observed in rejecting 
the clerk’s claims: 
{¶ 36} “Ordinarily, we might be inclined to treat Montgomery County like 
any other litigant and, therefore, to presume that it is responsible for paying any 
costs or fees that the Kettering Municipal Court generally is authorized to assess 
under R.C. 1901.26 or 1901.261.  After reviewing the full statutory scheme 
governing the relationship between Montgomery County and the Kettering 
Municipal Court, however, we are persuaded otherwise.  * * * [T]he Revised 
Code provides for the city of Kettering to prosecute certain violations of state law 
January Term, 2006 
9 
in the Kettering Municipal Court.  See, e.g., R.C. 1901.34.  In turn, the Revised 
Code requires Montgomery County to bear certain financial responsibilities in 
connection with state-law prosecutions brought in the Kettering Municipal Court.  
These responsibilities include paying part of the salary and health-insurance costs 
for various municipal-court employees.  See, e.g., R.C. 1901.11(C), 1901.111, 
1901.32(A)(1) and 1901.31(C)(3).  With some exceptions, the Revised Code also 
requires the Kettering Municipal Court Clerk to pay certain fine and forfeited 
bond money to Montgomery County and allows the City of Kettering to retain 
certain costs and fees collected in state-law criminal prosecutions.  See, e.g., R.C. 
1901.31(F), 4301.57, 4513.35, and 5503.04.  Finally, with regard to the payment 
of costs and fees imposed in connection with state-law prosecutions brought in 
Kettering Municipal Court, the Revised Code expressly obligates Montgomery 
County to pay some such expenses.  * * * R.C. 1901.25, 1901.26(A)(4), and 
2335.08 obligate a county to pay the fees of jurors and witnesses in municipal 
court cases involving violations of state law.  In addition, R.C. 2335.12 obligates 
a county to pay for service of writs in such cases. 
{¶ 37} “The foregoing provisions reveal that the General Assembly has 
carefully considered and structured the terms of the relationship between 
Montgomery County and the Kettering Municipal Court with regard to the 
prosecution of state-law offenses by the City of Kettering.  Given the specificity 
with which the General Assembly has acted in this area, we are disinclined to 
infer a legislative intent to subject Montgomery County to the fees for which the 
Kettering Municipal Court Clerk seeks compensation.”  (Footnote omitted and 
emphasis sic.)  Dayton Law Library Assn., 163 Ohio App.3d 118, 2005-Ohio-
4520, 836 N.E.2d 1232, at ¶ 20-21. 
{¶ 38} The clerk relies on the R.C. 1901.31(F) requirement that municipal 
court clerks pay “all fines collected for the violation of state laws into the county 
treasury” to support her contention that these cases are prosecuted on behalf of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
and for the benefit of the county and thus the county is the real losing party in 
unsuccessful state-law prosecutions.  But the clerk ignores other pertinent 
provisions that designate the municipality, and not the county, as the recipient of 
court costs and fees, including the fees that the clerk seeks to charge the county in 
this case.  See R.C. 1901.31(F) (“Except in a county-operated municipal court, the 
clerk shall pay all costs and fees the disbursement of which is not otherwise 
provided for in the Revised Code into the city treasury”); R.C. 1901.26(B)(1) 
(“All moneys collected under division (B) of this section shall be paid * * * to the 
city treasurer if the court is not a county-operated municipal court for deposit into 
either a general special projects fund or a fund established for a specific special 
project”); R.C. 1901.261(A)(2) (“All fees collected under this section shall be 
paid * * * to the city treasurer if the court is not a county-operated municipal 
court”); R.C. 1901.261(B)(1) (“all moneys collected under division (B)(1) of this 
section shall be paid * * * to the city treasurer if the court is not a county-operated 
municipal court”).  Therefore, the municipal court is a greater beneficiary of these 
costs than is the county. 
{¶ 39} For the foregoing reasons, the court of appeals correctly held that 
the clerk could not offset the municipal court’s payments due the county with the 
specified costs incurred in connection with unsuccessful state-law prosecutions in 
municipal court.  A contrary holding would result in the court’s adding language 
to R.C. 1901.26 and 1901.261.  This we cannot do.  See State ex rel. Asti v. Ohio 
Dept. of Youth Servs., 107 Ohio St.3d 262, 2005-Ohio-6432, 838 N.E.2d 658, ¶ 
29.  If the General Assembly had intended the result advocated by the municipal 
court clerk, it would have so provided, as it has in other court provisions making 
the county liable for other costs.  Cf. R.C. 1901.25, 1901.26(A)(4), 2335.08, and 
2335.12.  Appellees were thus entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in 
mandamus.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2006 
11 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
Cooper & Gentile, Janet K. Cooper, and Diane L. Gentile, for appellee 
Dayton Law Library Association. 
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Marck I. Wallach, and Matthew M. 
Mendoza; Kettering Law Department, David L. Eubank, and Theodore A. Hamer 
III, for appellant. 
Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Victoria E. Watson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Montgomery 
County Board of Commissioners and Montgomery County Treasurer. 
______________________