Title: George Shima Buick, Inc. v. Ferencak

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as George Shima Buick, Inc. v. Ferencak, 91 Ohio St.3d 1211, 2001-Ohio-
238.] 
 
 
 
GEORGE SHIMA BUICK, INC., APPELLEE, v. FERENCAK, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as George Shima Buick, Inc. v. Ferencak (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1211.] 
Appeal and certification of conflict dismissed and judgment of court of appeals 
vacated for want of jurisdiction. 
(Nos. 00-203 and 00-550 – Submitted November 14, 2000 – Decided February 7, 
2001.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 98-L-
202. 
__________________ 
 
The appeal and certification of conflict are dismissed, sua sponte, and the 
judgment of the court of appeals is vacated for want of jurisdiction.  Cicco v. 
Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066.  A pleading was not 
served upon the Attorney General per Cicco. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents. 
 
PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring.  This case illustrates the 
significance and importance of our decision in Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 
Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066. 
 
Each time a party legally challenges the constitutionality of a state statute, 
the party is, in essence, requesting the court to enter a declaratory judgment that 
the statute is unconstitutional.  Even if the challenge is not initially raised in a 
“complaint for declaratory judgment” pursuant to R.C. 2721.12, the court must 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
enter a formal judgment deciding the issue of constitutionality regardless of when 
the issue is raised.  Such a decision is, in fact, a declaratory judgment. 
 
Pursuant to Cicco’s interpretation of R.C. 2721.12, when a party 
challenges the constitutionality of a state statute, the issue must be framed in a 
complaint or other initial pleading, such as a counterclaim or cross-claim, and the 
party asserting the claim must serve the Attorney General in accordance with the 
methods set forth in Civ.R. 4.1.  This assures notice to the Attorney General and 
allows the Attorney General the opportunity to appear and defend the interests of 
the state.  Without these protections, there is no method to apprise the Attorney 
General that the constitutionality of a state statute is being attacked. 
 
This case was filed in small claims court by plaintiff George Shima Buick, 
Inc., alleging damages of $400.09.  The defendant challenged the constitutionality 
of R.C. 1925.17 in a motion to dismiss.  The defendant alleged, in essence, that 
R.C. 1925.17, which permits a corporation to file and present a claim in small 
claims court through a bona fide officer or salaried employee, violates the 
separation of powers doctrine by allowing the General Assembly to make rules 
that permit the unauthorized practice of law by a layperson. The Attorney General 
was never served or otherwise notified of the action and did not enter an 
appearance.  The defendant who raised the constitutional issue did not appear 
even at trial.  At the Supreme Court level, the plaintiff-appellee did not file a 
brief.  Nevertheless, based upon this meager record, we were asked to decide the 
constitutionality of R.C. 1925.17, notwithstanding the fact that R.C. 1925.17 
impacts the many corporations that utilize small claims courts. 
 
However, in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco, we determined that 
jurisdiction did not vest in the court of appeals because the Attorney General was 
not served.  Our dismissal of the case is not because this is not an important issue, 
but because the state did not have the opportunity, afforded by statute, to appear 
January Term, 2001 
3 
and be heard.  This court’s interpretation of R.C. 2721.12 in Cicco ensures such a 
result.  Therefore, I concur with dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  Because the majority’s decision both rewrites 
statutory law and ignores decisional law, I respectfully dissent. 
 
The majority states that “the judgment of the court of appeals is vacated 
for want of jurisdiction” because “[a] pleading was not served upon the Attorney 
General per Cicco.”  Cicco, however, is wholly inapplicable to this case.  The 
Cicco majority stated that “[t]he issue before us is what constitutes proper service 
upon the Attorney General for purposes of former R.C. 2721.12 in a declaratory 
judgment action.”  (Emphasis added.)  Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio 
St.3d 95, 97, 728 N.E.2d 1066, 1069.  The syllabus of that opinion addresses the 
obligations that former R.C. 2721.12 imposed upon a party challenging the 
constitutionality of a statute.  Former R.C. 2721.12 provided that it applied only 
“[w]hen declaratory relief is sought.”  144 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2902, 2930.  This 
language in former R.C. 2721.12 is essentially the same as that found in the 
current version of the statute. 
 
This case is not a declaratory judgment action.  Rather, this cause began as 
a small claims case initiated by George Shima Buick, Inc. to recover damages and 
interest after Ferencak stopped payment on a check she had written for 
automobile repairs.  In a motion to dismiss, defendant raised the constitutionality 
of R.C. 1925.17.  Perplexingly, the majority imports the special service 
requirement of the declaratory judgment statute to this non-declaratory judgment 
action.  It does so without supporting statutory or decisional law. 
 
This court’s long-standing, consistent precedent interprets former R.C. 
2721.12 as applicable only in declaratory judgment actions. See, e.g., State ex rel. 
Madison v. Cotner (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 448, 449, 20 O.O.3d 381, 381-382, 423 
N.E.2d 72, 73 (“Examination of [former R.C. 2721.12] reveals [that] it applies to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
actions in which declaratory relief is sought.  This is an original action in 
mandamus; therefore, that statute is inapplicable.”).  See, also, Warren Cty. Bd. of 
Commrs. v. Lebanon (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 188, 189, 540 N.E.2d 242, 244, citing 
Malloy v. Westlake (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 103, 6 O.O.3d 329, 370 N.E.2d 457 (“It 
is apparent from the language of R.C. 2721.12 that it applies only to cases seeking 
declaratory judgment which are filed, at least in part, for the purpose of 
challenging the constitutionality of a statute, ordinance or franchise.”); Canton v. 
Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc. (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 47, 45 O.O.2d 327, 242 
N.E.2d 566.  We did not deviate from this pattern in Cicco.  Cicco, 89 Ohio St.3d 
at 97, 728 N.E.2d at 1069. 
 
The majority’s decision nonetheless takes the special-service requirement 
from the declaratory judgment statute and demands that it be met in non-
declaratory judgment actions.  No sound legal reasoning is offered for doing so.  
Apparently, the majority thinks that it would be good public policy to have the 
Attorney General served any time a party challenges the constitutionality of a 
statute.  But such public-policy choices are the function of the General Assembly.  
See Rambaldo v. Accurate Die Casting (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 281, 288, 603 
N.E.2d 975, 980 (“This is a public-policy issue which should be addressed by the 
General Assembly * * *.  It is not a problem which should be addressed by this 
court in a sweeping public-policy statement.”); Lyons v. Lyons (1965), 2 Ohio 
St.2d 243, 247, 31 O.O.2d 504, 506, 208 N.E.2d 533, 537 (“If there is to be a 
change in the public policy of the state * * * it should come from the General 
Assembly.”); Korr v. Thomas Emery’s Sons, Inc. (1950), 154 Ohio St. 11, 18-19, 
42 O.O. 102, 105, 93 N.E.2d 14, 17 (“Courts have nothing to do with forming 
public policy and declare such public policy only after the policy has been 
formulated by the General Assembly.”); State ex rel. Williams v. Glander (1947), 
148 Ohio St. 188, 205, 35 O.O. 192, 199, 74 N.E.2d 82, 90 (“So long as an act of 
the General Assembly is constitutional, the question of policy is solely for the 
January Term, 2001 
5 
legislative branch of our state government to determine.”).  We can only imagine 
the reaction of the Attorney General to such a proposal if it were subjected to 
legislative hearings, as any such legislation ought to be.  This court, on the other 
hand, did not even have the benefit of briefs on the issue of the statute’s scope. 
 
Accordingly, I disagree with the majority’s incorrect procedural 
disposition and would reach the merits of this case. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Paul Mancino, Jr., for appellant. 
__________________