Title: State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3093.] 
 
 
 
 
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-3093 
THE STATE EX REL. PATTON, APPELLANT, v. RHODES, AUDITOR, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3093.] 
Mandamus — Public records — R.C. 149.43 — County auditor has no obligation 
under R.C. 149.43(B) to provide access to public records by means of 
posting records on website — Requester of records not entitled to attorney 
fees or statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(1). 
(No. 2011-0183 — Submitted May 24, 2011 — Decided June 30, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, 
No. C-100258, 2011-Ohio-213. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
Facts 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a request by appellant, 
Michael Earl Patton, for attorney fees and statutory damages in a mandamus 
action.  In that underlying action, Patton sought a writ directing Dusty Rhodes, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Hamilton County Auditor, to provide him with access to the county’s financial 
reports for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008 pursuant to R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public 
Records Act.  The court of appeals dismissed Patton’s mandamus action as moot, 
in that Patton received the access he sought by virtue of the posting of the 
requested records on the county auditor’s website.  The appellate court also 
denied Patton’s request for statutory damages and attorney fees.  Because the 
court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Patton’s request for 
damages and fees, we affirm its judgment. 
{¶ 2} On March 5, 2010, Patton hand-delivered the following written 
request to the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office: 
{¶ 3} “Pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act, I request a copy of the 
financial reports of Hamilton County prepared by the county auditor for the fiscal 
years of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008.  The information may be either released to 
me personally or put on the county auditor’s website. If the latter, then please 
contact me when the information has been added.” 
{¶ 4} When the request was made, the annual financial statements 
already audited by the state auditor had been posted on the county auditor’s 
website.  The financial statements for 2004, 2005, and 2006 had not been posted 
because the state auditor had not been completed those audits.  The process had 
been impeded by certain claims by the United States and Ohio about expenditures 
and accounting procedures of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family 
Services in those years.  Because of the complex issues causing these financial 
statements to remain unaudited, subsequent audits were more complicated, and 
the audit of the 2008 financial statement had not been completed. 
{¶ 5} On March 15, 2010, the county auditor’s office asked the state 
auditor’s office for its opinion concerning Patton’s request for the unaudited 
financial reports.  That same day, the state auditor’s office responded by 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
providing those reports to Patton was appropriate, but cautioned that the reports 
should be clearly labeled “unaudited.” 
{¶ 6} On March 31, the county auditor’s office asked the state auditor’s 
office about the propriety of posting the requested unaudited financial reports on 
its website.  The state auditor’s office warned the county auditor to make sure that 
the reports “are clearly marked unaudited, and possibly indicate that they are not 
the final” reports. 
{¶ 7} On April 16, 2010, after receiving no response from the county 
auditor to his March 5 request, Patton filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals 
for Hamilton County for a writ of mandamus to compel the county auditor to 
make the requested financial reports available for inspection and copying in 
accordance with the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, and for an award of 
statutory damages and attorney fees under the act. 
{¶ 8} On April 20, the county auditor’s office asked the state auditor’s 
office if the following cautionary language would suffice should the county 
auditor post the unaudited financial reports on its website:  “Please note that these 
financial reports are draft statements only.  They are unaudited and should not be 
considered to be the County’s final financial statements for the period indicated.”  
The state auditor’s office approved the proposed cautionary language that same 
day. 
{¶ 9} On April 30, 2010, the county auditor notified Patton that the 
requested financial statements had been posted on the auditor’s website on or 
shortly before that date.  Because the requested financial statements were not 
stored in electronic format, they had to be scanned and formatted so that they 
could be posted on the website. 
{¶ 10} The county auditor submitted an answer to Patton’s mandamus 
complaint, and the parties submitted stipulated evidence.  Patton subsequently 
conceded that by posting the requested financial records online, the county auditor 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
had satisfied his request.  Patton filed a motion for an award of statutory damages, 
attorney fees, and costs.  The county auditor filed a motion for summary 
judgment.  On January 21, 2011, the court of appeals dismissed Patton’s 
mandamus action as moot and denied his motion for an award of statutory 
damages and attorney fees. 
{¶ 11} This cause is now before the court upon Patton’s appeal as of right. 
Analysis 
{¶ 12} Patton asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying his request 
for statutory damages and attorney fees.  In this appeal, we review whether the 
court of appeals abused its discretion in denying the request.  See State ex rel. 
Doe v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 44, 2009-Ohio-4149, 914 N.E.2d 159, ¶ 1, 47 
(holding that a court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in its award of 
statutory damages and attorney fees in a public-records mandamus case). 
{¶ 13} Patton bases his entitlement to the requested damages and fees on 
provisions of R.C. 149.43, the Public Records Act.  R.C. 149.43(C)(1) provides: 
{¶ 14} “If a person allegedly is aggrieved by the failure of a public office 
or the person responsible for public records to promptly prepare a public record 
and to make it available to the person for inspection in accordance with division 
(B) of this section or by any other failure of a public office or the person 
responsible for public records to comply with an obligation in accordance with 
division (B) of this section, the person allegedly aggrieved may commence a 
mandamus action to obtain a judgment that orders the public office or the person 
responsible for the public record to comply with division (B) of this section, that 
awards court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the person that instituted the 
mandamus action, and, if applicable, that includes an order fixing statutory 
damages under division (C)(1) of this section.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 15} Although Patton cited the Public Records Act in both his March 5, 
2010 request for the county’s financial reports and in his complaint in mandamus, 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
part of the relief he requested–the placement of the requested records on the 
county auditor’s website–is not the relief that is authorized by R.C. 149.43.  That 
statute specifies two primary means of providing access to public records:  (1) 
making the records “available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times 
during regular business hours” and (2) making “copies of the requested record[s] 
available at cost and within a reasonable time.”  R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  The statute 
does not require a public office or person responsible for public records to post 
these records online on the office’s website. 
{¶ 16} R.C. 149.43(C)(1) authorizes a mandamus action to obtain a 
“judgment that orders the public office of the person responsible for the public 
record to comply with division (B)” of the statute.  Division (B) does not require 
the posting of public records online.  The county auditor was not obliged to 
comply with Patton’s request that the records be posted on the county auditor’s 
website.  Thus, to the extent that Patton sought the online posting of the requested 
documents, his request was not authorized by R.C. 149.43(B) and he may not be 
awarded attorney fees and statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(1). 
{¶ 17} “It is axiomatic that in mandamus proceedings, the creation of the 
legal duty that a relator seeks to enforce is the distinct function of the legislative 
branch of government, and courts are not authorized to create the legal duty 
enforceable in mandamus.”  (Emphasis deleted.)  State ex rel. Pipoly v. State 
Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 
18; see also State ex rel. Bardwell v. Cleveland, 126 Ohio St.3d 195, 2010-Ohio-
3267, 931 N.E.2d 1080 (court of appeals was not authorized to create duty on the 
part of city and its police chief to require pawnbrokers to submit certain reports on 
regular paper rather than on index cards when there was no such requirement 
under R.C. 149.43(B)(2)). 
{¶ 18} Therefore, based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not 
abuse its discretion by denying Patton’s request for an award of statutory damages 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
and attorney fees for his mandamus claim.  The possibility that the court of 
appeals’ rationale for ruling this way may have been erroneous does not warrant a 
reversal of its correct judgment denying the damages and fees.  See State ex rel. 
Dehler v. Kelly, 127 Ohio St.3d 309, 2010-Ohio-5724, 939 N.E.2d 828, ¶ 2 
(applying this axiom in a public-records mandamus case). 
{¶ 19} Additionally, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in 
denying his request for the following reasons. 
{¶ 20} First, the court of appeals correctly held that the county auditor 
satisfied Patton’s request for copies of the financial reports–by posting them 
online–within the “reasonable period of time” specified in R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  
This determination is dependent “upon all of the pertinent facts and 
circumstances.”  State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-
Ohio-1901, 906 N.E.2d 1105, ¶ 10.  The pertinent facts and circumstances are that 
audits of the financial reports by the state auditor had not been completed, 
potential claims by the federal and state governments prevented the completion of 
the audit, and possible harm to persons relying on the unaudited statements 
justified the county auditor’s cautious approach in seeking the advice of the state 
auditor before agreeing to post the unaudited reports on his website with a 
warning approved by the state auditor. 
{¶ 21} Second, because Patton failed to establish that the county auditor 
“failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with” R.C. 149.43(B), he was 
also not entitled to an award of statutory damages.  R.C. 149.43(C)(1). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 22} Thus, Patton cannot prove that the court of appeals erred in 
denying his request for statutory damages and attorney fees, and we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman and Curt C. Hartman, for appellant. 
Joseph Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christian J. 
Schaefer and Roger E. Friedman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________