[Cite as State ex rel. Ware v. Fankhauser, 2022-Ohio-172.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. 

KIMANI E. WARE, 

 Relator, 

 - v - 

JILL FANKHAUSER, 

PORTAGE COUNTY 

CLERK OF COURTS, 

 Respondent. 

CASE NO. 2021-P-0056

Original Action for Writ of Mandamus 

P E R C U R I A M 

O P I N I O N 

Decided: January 24, 2022 

Judgment: Petition denied 

Kimani E. Ware, pro se, PID# A470-743, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett 

Road, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Relator). 

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Christopher J. Meduri, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent). 

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Pending before this court are: Relator, Kimani E. Ware’s, Motion for 

Summary Judgment filed on September 7, 2021; Respondent, Jill Fankhauser’s, Motion 

for Summary Judgment filed on November 10, 2021; and Ware’s Reply to Fankhauser’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment filed on December 6, 2021. 

{¶2} On June 7, 2021, Ware filed a Verified Complaint for Writ of Mandamus 

pursuant to R.C. Chapter 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act, seeking a writ of mandamus 
2 

Case No. 2021-P-0056

to compel Fankhauser to comply with records requests sent by certified mail to the 

Portage County Clerk of Courts on January 27, 2020. Ware further sought court costs 

and statutory damages. 

{¶3} On August 18, 2021, during the pendency of this action, Fankhauser 

complied with the public records requests thereby mooting Ware’s claim for a writ of 

mandamus while the claims for statutory damages and court costs remained pending. 

State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, 164 Ohio St.3d 552, 2021-Ohio-623, 174 

N.E.3d 718, ¶ 15 and 17. 

{¶4} Ware seeks judgment in his favor as to statutory damages and court costs. 

Fankhauser raises no argument in opposition to the claim for statutory damages but 

denies that Ware is entitled to court costs. 

{¶5} “The Public Records Act provides for awards of attorney fees, statutory 

damages, and court costs under certain circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 17. A “requester [of 

public records] shall be entitled to recover the amount of statutory damages set forth in 

this division if a court determines that the public office or the person responsible for public 

records failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section,” 

i.e., “all public records responsive to the request shall be promptly prepared and made 

available for inspection to the requester.” R.C. 149.43(C)(2) and (B)(1). “The amount of 

statutory damages shall be fixed at one hundred dollars for each business day during 

which the public office or person responsible for the requested public records failed to 

comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section, beginning with 

the day on which the requester files a mandamus action to recovery statutory damages, 

up to a maximum of one thousand dollars.” R.C. 149.43(C)(2). 
3 

Case No. 2021-P-0056

{¶6} In the present case, seventy-two days passed between the filing of the 

Complaint for Mandamus on June 7 and the fulfillment of the requests on August 18. 

Accordingly, Ware is entitled to the statutory maximum of one thousand dollars in 

damages. 

{¶7} A court may award court costs if it determines that the public office or the 

person responsible for public records has acted in “bad faith.” Frank at ¶ 17; R.C. 

149.43(C)(3)(a)(ii) (“[i]f the court makes a determination [of bad faith], the court shall 

determine and award to the relator all court costs, which shall be construed as remedial 

and not punitive”). Stated otherwise, the court must determine that “[t]he public office or 

the person responsible for the public records acted in bad faith when the office or person 

voluntarily made the public records available to the relator for the first time after the relator 

commenced the mandamus action, but before the court issued any order concluding 

whether or not the public office or person was required to comply with division (B) of this 

section.” R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b)(iii). 

{¶8} For the purposes of the Public Records Act, “‘bad faith’ generally implies 

something more than bad judgment or negligence,” rather, it “imports a dishonest 

purpose, moral obliquity, conscious wrongdoing, breach of a known duty through some 

ulterior motive or ill will partaking of the nature of fraud” and “embraces actual intent to 

mislead or deceive another.” (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 

161 Ohio St.3d 130, 2020-Ohio-3686, 161 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 26. 

{¶9} Based on the evidence before this court, we conclude that Fankhauser 

acted in bad faith in that she consciously disregarded Ware’s records requests for over a 

year before voluntarily complying. The initial requests were made on January 27, 2020 
4 

Case No. 2021-P-0056

and submitted to the Portage County Clerk of Courts at 203 West Main Street, Ravenna, 

Ohio by certified mail. The return receipt indicated delivery on January 31, 2020. On 

February 10, 2020, the records requests were mailed back to Ware without explanation. 

On February 12 and March 12, 2020, Ware wrote to the Clerk of Courts inquiring about 

his records requests but received no response. On June 7, 2021, Ware filed the 

Complaint for Mandamus, and, on August 18, 2021, Fankhauser complied with the 

records requests – over a year and a half after receiving the initial requests. Fankhauser 

does not challenge the documentary evidence submitted by Ware and has not proffered 

any explanation for the delay in responding to the requests. Accordingly, we find that 

Ware is entitled to court costs. Compare State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.C. v. Dept. 

of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 56, 2018-Ohio-5133, 123 N.E.3d 928, ¶ 33 and 46 

(court costs awarded where there was a ten-month delay in responding to the public 

records request). 

{¶10} It is the judgment of this court that Ware’s Motion for Summary Judgment is 

granted, and Fankhauser’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Ware is awarded 

statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 and Fankhauser is ordered to pay all court 

costs. Ware’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as moot. 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., MATT LYNCH, J., concur.