Title: White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

White, Appellant, v. Clinton County Board of Commissioners et al., Appellees. 
[Cite as White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997),_____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
Public records -- Determination on application for attorney fees and 
costs. 
 
(No. 95-953 --Submitted October 8, 1996 -- Decided February 26, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clinton County, No. CA94-08-20. 
ON  APPLICATION for Costs and Attorney Fees. 
 
On August 21, 1996, we decided the underlying issue in this case.  We 
held that the mandamus relief ordered by the trial court was proper, and we 
awarded attorney fees because appellant relied upon R.C. 121.22 (the Sunshine 
Law) and 149.43 (the Ohio Public Records Act).  White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of 
Commrs. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 416, 667 N.E.2d 1223. 
 
Baker & Hostetler, David L. Marburger, Hilary W. Rule and Anthony J. 
Franze, for appellant. 
 
Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Mark Landes and Terri B. Gregori;  and 
William E. Peele, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
 
2
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.  This matter is now before the court on the 
application of appellant, Lizbeth A. White, for costs and attorney fees pursuant 
to R.C. 121.22 and 149.43.  White seeks to recover $84,150 in attorney fees and 
$6935.04 in expenses and court costs incurred during this litigation.  She has 
submitted evidence in the form of affidavits and fee bills from the two law firms 
that represented her at various times throughout this case. 
 
The version of R.C. 121.22(I)(2) in effect at the time appellant’s cause of 
action arose provided for an award of  “all court costs and reasonable attorney’s 
fees.”  144 Ohio Laws, Part II, 1858.  R.C. 149.43(C) states that a person 
aggrieved by a failure to observe R.C. 149.43 may commence a mandamus 
action and receive reasonable attorney fees for the successful prosecution of 
such an action. 
 
An award of attorney fees in a public records case is discretionary and 
depends upon whether there has been a sufficient benefit bestowed upon the 
public to warrant the award.  State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. 
Ohio Dept. of Health (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 1, 553 N.E.2d 1345;  State ex rel. 
 
3
Multimedia, Inc. v. Whalen (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 99, 100, 554 N.E.2d 1321, 
1322.   Because an award of attorney fees is punitive in nature, we look to 
whether a party was acting in good faith and had a reasonable legal basis for its 
failure to comply with the statute.  Id. 
 
White’s case was one of first impression.  It involved the novel issue of 
the interpretation of R.C. 121.22, 149.43 and 305.10.  There was little guidance 
in terms of case law that defined the scope of recordkeeping.  Many county 
boards of commissioners, including the Clinton County Board, were operating 
under the belief that a bare-bones summary of a meeting was sufficient for 
purposes of maintaining statutorily required minutes.  As a result of this case, 
county boards of commissioners must include sufficient facts and information in 
their records so that the public will understand and appreciate the rationale 
behind the decisions reflected in the records. 
 
The Clinton County Board of Commissioners maintained minutes of its 
meetings, but the minutes lacked sufficient detail to constitute a full record of 
the proceedings of the board.   However, to the extent the records existed, the 
 
4
Clinton County Board acted in accordance with existing law and made the 
records available to the appellant upon request. 
 
In addition, upon review of the evidence submitted by the appellant for 
assessing the reasonableness of the attorney fees requested, we find that attorney 
fees should not be awarded for the three causes of action appellant dismissed 
prior to trial.  Appellant did not prosecute those claims and, therefore, is not 
entitled to recover attorney fees for work performed on those claims.  We also 
find that there was duplication of effort in terms of research on identical issues 
performed by the two law firms representing appellant. 
 
Therefore, in light of the above findings, we find it reasonable to reduce 
the amount of attorney fees requested by $20,000. 
 
We also deny appellant’s request for the recovery of $6,400 for 
preparation of the fee application, and the separate bills of $6,138.81 and 
$796.23 for litigation expenses.  These items are not within the ambit of R.C. 
149.43(C) and not within the definition of “costs.” State ex rel. Plain Dealer 
Publishing Co. v. Cleveland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 1218, 1219, 667 N.E.2d 
 
5
1232, 1232-1233.  However, White is entitled to a refund of the filing fees of 
$150 and $40.  Id. 
 
Therefore, we order appellees to pay appellant the sum of $57,750 in 
attorney fees and $190 as reimbursement for costs for a total of $57,940. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissenting.     I respectfully dissent.  It is unclear to me what 
makes us competent to determine a figure for allowed attorney fees other than 
that which appears from the record to be fair and reasonable.  Accordingly, I 
would allow the attorney fees and costs as submitted with the exception of the 
amount submitted for preparation of the fee bill.  Because the majority does not 
do so, I respectfully dissent. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.