[Cite as Lucas v. Ohio St. Bd. of Edn., 2021-Ohio-3902.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Megan Lucas et al., : 

 Appellants-Appellees, : 

 No. 21AP-138 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 20CV-7962)

Ohio State Board of Education, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 Appellee-Appellee, : 

[Jefferson Township Local School : 

District Board of Education, 

 : 

 Appellant]. 

 : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on November 2, 2021 

 

On brief: Subashi, Wildermuth & Justice and 

Tabitha Justice, for appellant Jefferson Township Local School 

District Board of Education.1

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

MENTEL, J. 

{¶ 1} Jefferson Township Local School District Board of Education ("Jefferson 

Township") appeals from the decision and order denying its unopposed motion to 

intervene filed March 1, 2021. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. 

1 Appellee Ohio State Board of Education declined to file a brief in this case. Appellees Megan E. Lucas, et al., 

by and through counsel, notified the court that they did not intend to file a substantive brief in the case and 

will defer to the reasoning expressed by the trial court in its March 5, 2021 Decision. (May 13, 2021 Notice.) 
No. 21AP-138 2 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} The facts and procedural history of this case were set forth in Lucas, et al. v. 

Ohio State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 19AP-463, 2020-Ohio-2738 ("Lucas I"). This court 

wrote: 

In March 2018, Megan Lucas and other concerned residents of 

the Jefferson school district petitioned the state board for the 

transfer of the roughly nine square miles of school district 

territory from Jefferson to Valley View pursuant to R.C. 

3311.24. The Ohio Department of Education appointed a 

hearing officer to review the matter. 

In January 2019, after holding a two-day evidentiary hearing 

on the territory transfer request, the hearing officer issued her 

rather detailed report and recommendation. She found, among 

other things, that the proposed transfer area is owned by fewer 

than ten families and that of the 25 or so school-age children 

who live there, only "four or five of these children appear to 

attend Jefferson schools." Report and Recommendation at 

¶ 18, 20-21. After critiquing Jefferson's performance ("[a]s of 

October 2018," for example, "Jefferson had not finalized its 

students' schedules for the 2018-2019 school year," id. at ¶ 43) 

and contrasting it unfavorably with Valley View's much better 

job on state report cards and graduation rates, she reviewed 

transfer factors identified in Ohio's Administrative Code and 

assessed the issues raised by the parties. 

"Valley View provides a better assortment of higher caliber 

classes and activities to its students than Jefferson does," she 

observed, and she gave "great weight" to the fact that "[t]he 

predominant [agricultural] vocation of the residents of the 

Territory [proposed for transfer] is not being addressed by 

Jefferson," which unlike Valley View does not offer agriculture 

classes and 4H programs. Id. at page 11. She also noted that 

"[n]o evidence has been presented that racial animus was a 

factor in this transfer request," and that Jefferson had stated 

that the transfer would not have more than a de minimis effect 

on the racial composition of its schools. Id. at 10-11. While 

"Jefferson claims an alleged tax revenue loss of $456,552.00 

[annually] and an alleged valuation loss of $13,600.00 [sic: 

should be $13,600,000.00]," the district did not provide any 

"specific examples" of how that revenue loss would adversely 

affect its students, she said, and the district's 2017 revenues had 

outpaced its expenses by more than $800,000. Id. at 12. 
No. 21AP-138 3 

 "Jefferson has been in overall disorder for many years," the 

hearing officer concluded, "even with the revenue from the 

Territory. * * * * [T]he decreasing student population, 

accounting issues and the turnover/retention of 

administration/staff have continued to be issues. This transfer 

will not change the issues that have challenged Jefferson." Id.

at 14. On the other side of the equation, the residents proposing 

transfer "have been concerned about their children's 

educational opportunities for many years." And "[t]he 

educational opportunities available to the students in the 

Territory [at issue] * * * will be vastly improved by the granting 

of this transfer." Id. In sum, she recommended that the state 

board grant the petitioners' request. Id.

Jefferson submitted objections to the hearing officer's report 

and recommendation, reciting that the transfer would have 

"immense emotional and financial impact * * * on Jefferson's 

stakeholders." Objections at 1. Among other things, and using 

what may seem odd locution for an educational enterprise, 

Jefferson argued that "petitioners * * * presented tangible 

evidence related to the best interest of only two children [sic, 

and emphasis in original] within the disputed territory." Id. at 

2. The transfer would have racial isolation implications, they 

argued, and would not be in the best interests of the students 

remaining in the district; whether movement of students 

should be permitted must turn in part on those children's 

hypothesized race, the objections contended, because 

boundary changes affect students district-wide. Id. at 2-4. 

Moreover, "Valley View would be acquiring over $450k in tax 

revenues while assuming the duty to educate 2 to 5 children. 

This disproportionality clearly does not weigh in favor of a 

transfer." Id. at 7. And "better educational programming in one 

district for two specific children is not 'overwhelming' evidence 

supporting the transfer [of] nine square miles of territory." Id. 

at 9. 

Jefferson's objections also noted that the district's 

superintendent had testified that revenue losses would result 

in programming cuts, and responses from the treasurer 

reflected a threat of hemorrhaging deficits. Id. at 10. 

Additionally, Jefferson submitted, petitioners had failed to 

explain "why nine square miles needs to be transferred when a 

much smaller transfer would accomplish the same alleged goal 

[of helping transferring students]." Id. at 11. As to agricultural 

offerings, "[t]here was no evidence presented regarding any 

courses taken by any specific students that would not be 

available should those students attend Jefferson or another 
No. 21AP-138 4 

district through open enrollment." Id. at 13. "Finally, the 

hearing officer did not even address proximity of the 

transferred property to the receiving school district, which is a 

factors [sic] set forth in OAC 3301-89- 02(B)(13) and (14)." Id. 

(with map at 14). 

The state board met to consider the transfer petition on 

February 11, 2019. The minutes of that meeting reflect that 

after the recommendation was presented to the board, three 

individual board members advocated rejecting the hearing 

officer's recommendation and disapproving the transfer. Each 

of the three advanced different and separate reasons for that 

position: one "stated her main concern was that a segregated 

area would be even more segregated if the transfer were to be 

allowed," and also noted that "only four to five students would 

be affected in an almost nine-mile area"; one "noted the 14 

percent loss of the budget"; and one "stated concerns with 

setting precedent [because] petitioners knew what district the 

house they purchased was in." February 11, 2019 State Board 

Minutes at 19. 

By a vote of 10-7, the board then voted to reject the 

recommendation of the hearing officer and disapprove the 

transfer "in light of the persuasiveness of Jefferson Local 

School District's objections." Id. at 20. The resolution itself 

contained no other explanation for the board's rejection of the 

hearing officer's recommendation. Id.

The petitioners appealed the state board's determination to the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 

119.12.2 With briefing complete, the trial court began its 

decision with a succinct procedural overview and observed that 

before "seeking the land transfer, [the petitioners had] 

attempted to work with the Jefferson School Board to improve 

the district, including one appellant serving on the school 

board." Decision and Entry at 1. The trial court then recited that 

R.C. 119.12(M) provides: "The court may affirm the order of the 

agency complained of in the appeal if it finds, upon 

consideration of the entire record and any additional evidence 

the court has admitted, that the order is supported by reliable, 

probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with 

law. In the absence of this finding, it may reverse, vacate, or 

modify the order or make such other ruling as is supported by 

reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in 

2 While not at issue in Lucas I, the trial court granted Jefferson Township's unopposed motion to intervene in 

the case. (May 29, 2019 Entry.) 
No. 21AP-138 5 

accordance with law." Id. at 2-3 (then citing Bartchy v. State 

Bd. of Edn., 120 Ohio St.3d 205, 212, 2008-Ohio-4826, 897 

N.E.2d 1096, for instructions including that while the court 

should give deference to agency findings of fact, the court itself 

determines questions of law). 

The trial court then turned to our decision in Residents of 

Baldwin Rd. v. State, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-257, 2002-Ohio5522. As the trial court noted, see Decision and Entry at 3-4, we 

said there that "[w]hile the Board is not required to accept a 

referee's recommendation to grant or deny a requested 

transfer, when the Board rejects a recommendation, there is a 

presumption that only the specific grounds listed by the Board 

provided the basis for the decision, with other possible grounds 

being rejected. However, where nothing in the Board's 

resolution addresses or contradicts the referee's conclusion 

that the students would be better served by the transfer, the 

Board's decision is not supported by reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence." 2002-Ohio-5522 at ¶ 16, citing 

Schreiner v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 98AP-1251 (Nov. 

9, 1999). The trial court continued by reciting that the state 

board's rejection of a hearing examiner's recommendation in 

Baldwin Rd. had been for an expressed reason that was 

appropriately overturned as "counter to evidence presented 

that showed the transfer [considered there] only affected one 

child and the economic impact was de minimis." Decision and 

Entry at 4. 

In this case, too, the trial court said, the state board "ignored 

the evidence found by the Hearing Officer supporting the 

transfer and instead relied on speculation and non-statutory 

factors." Id. The trial court then noted that three (of the 

seventeen) voting board members each had voiced one 

(different) concern, and the trial court reviewed each and found 

each to lack any reliable, probative, and substantial support in 

the record. Id. at 4-6. "The Hearing Officer's decision was based 

on reliable, probative, and substantial evidence," the trial court 

concluded. Id. at 6. "Thus, without specific grounds addressing 

or contradicting the recommendation of the Hearing Officer, 

the Board's decision is not based on reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence." Id. The trial court reversed the order of 

the state board and proceeded to grant the territory transfer 

request. Id. 

Jefferson—but not the state board—appeals. 

(Empasis sic.) Lucas I at ¶ 3-14. 
No. 21AP-138 6 

{¶ 3} On April 30, 2020, this court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded 

the case with instructions to the Ohio State Board of Education ("BOE") for further 

determination to set forth "appropriate, reviewable, consideration of the hearing officer's 

report and disposition of the transfer petition." Id. at ¶ 36. On November 10, 2020, the 

BOE rejected the hearing officer's recommendation to transfer territory from Jefferson 

Township to Valley View Local School District.3 Pursuant to R.C. 119.12, the case was 

appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. On March 1, 2021, Jefferson 

Township filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the administrative appeal. On 

March 5, 2021, the trial court denied the motion to intervene concluding that Jefferson 

Township's rights were adequately represented by the BOE. On March 12, 2021, Jefferson 

Township filed a motion for reconsideration. On March 24, 2021, the trial court denied the 

motion for reconsideration. The trial court wrote, "if Jefferson Township disagrees with 

this Court's decision on intervention, Jefferson Township is welcome to appeal." (Mar. 24, 

2021 Order.) 

{¶ 4} On April 5, 2021, Jefferson Township accepted the trial court's invitation and 

filed a notice of appeal. 

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶ 5} Jefferson Township assigns the following as trial court error: 

The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to intervene 

in the underlying administrative appeal. 

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

A. Jefferson Township's Sole Assignment of Error 

{¶ 6} In Jefferson Township's sole assignment of error, it argues that the trial court 

erred in denying its motion to intervene in the underlying administrative appeal.4

3 The order of the BOE was mailed to all parties on November 27, 2020. 

4 As an initial matter, this court has consistently found that the trial court's denial of a motion to intervene 

under Civ.R. 24(A) constitutes a final, appealable order. Ohio Community School Consultants, Ltd. v. Lincoln 

Preparatory Academy, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 19AP-301, 2020-Ohio-890, ¶ 18, citing In re D.T., 10th Dist. No. 

07AP-853, 2008-Ohio-2287, ¶ 8 ("An order denying a motion to intervene constitutes a final appealable 

order."); Blackburn v. Hamoudi, 29 Ohio App.3d 350 (10th Dist.1986). Other district courts have reached 

the same conclusion. See, e.g., Schaffer v. Jones, 1st Dist. No. C-160684, 2017-Ohio-7730 (finding the trial 

court's order denying the proposed intervenors' motion under Civ.R. 24(A) is a final, appealable order under 

R.C. 2505.02); Sabbato v. Hardy, 5th Dist. No. 2001CA00045, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3328, *4 (2001) ("the 

trial court's entry, denying [appellant's] motion to intervene, is a final appealable order."). Accordingly, the 
No. 21AP-138 7 

{¶ 7} We review a trial court's denial of a motion to intervene under an abuse of 

discretion analysis. State ex rel. N.G. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 147 Ohio 

St.3d 432, 2016-Ohio-1519, ¶ 21, citing State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural 

Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-4612, ¶ 41. A trial court abuses its discretion 

when its ruling is "unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore, 

5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). "An unreasonable decision is one that is unsupported by a 

sound reasoning process." Lias v. Beekman, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1134, 2007-Ohio-5737, 

¶ 12, citing AAAA Ents. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio 

St.3d 157, 161 (1990). 

{¶ 8} Pursuant to Civ.R. 24(A), a moving party may intervene as a matter of right 

when: 

(1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to 

intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating 

to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action 

and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action 

may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s 

ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is 

adequately represented by existing parties. 

{¶ 9} In order to intervene under Civ.R. 24(A)(2), the applicant must demonstrate 

"(1) it has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; 

(2) it is so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or 

impede its ability to protect its interest; (3) its interest is not adequately represented by the 

existing parties; and (4) it moved to intervene in a timely manner." Slater v. Ohio Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-453, 2018-Ohio-1475, ¶ 24, citing Petty v. Kroger Food 

& Pharmacy, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-592, 2005-Ohio-6641, ¶ 8. It is well-established law that 

courts are to apply a "liberal construction generally accorded Civ.R. 24 in favor of 

intervention" if its "mandatory procedural requirements" are satisfied. State ex rel. 

SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 182, 184 (1997). 

{¶ 10} In the present case, the trial court's analysis singularly focuses on the third 

element regarding whether Jefferson Township's interests are adequately represented by 

existing parties. It is the burden of the moving party to demonstrate that its interest will 

trial court's denial of the motion to intervene is a final, appealable order jurisdictionally sufficient for appellate 

review. 
No. 21AP-138 8 

not be effectively protected by the other parties. Yeater v. Bob Betson Ents., 7th Dist. No. 

04-BE-46, 2005-Ohio-6943, ¶ 30, citing Tomcany v. Range Constr., 11th Dist. No. 2003-

L-071, 2004-Ohio-5314, ¶ 30, citing Valley Asphalt Corp. v. Frame-Henson Asphalt 

Paving, Inc., 2d Dist. No. 88-CA-74, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 1327, *8 (Apr. 10, 1989). When 

resolving whether an intervenor's interests are adequately represented by existing parties, 

the trial court should consider: "(1) whether the interests of a present party are sufficiently 

similar to that of the movant such that the legal arguments of the latter will be made by the 

former; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make those arguments; and 

(3) if permitted to intervene, whether the intervenor would add some necessary element to 

the proceedings that would not be covered by the present parties." Yeater at ¶ 30, citing 

Tomcany at ¶ 30, citing Valley Asphalt Corp. at *9. Ohio courts, however, have recognized 

that this burden is minimal. Yeater at ¶ 30; Tomcany at ¶ 30; Valley Asphalt Corp. at *8. 

{¶ 11} In Lucas I, the trial court granted Jefferson Township's unopposed motion to 

intervene in the case. (May 29, 2019 Entry.) Now, for no discernable reason, the trial court 

concluded Jefferson Township's interests are adequately represented by the BOE. While 

there is no doubt that the BOE's and Jefferson Township's interests are aligned, the BOE 

has made it clear through the course of this litigation that it is either not capable or not 

willing to defend those interests. As acknowledged in the BOE's trial court brief, the defense 

against the proposed land transfer from the start has fallen on Jefferson Township. 

"Petitioners were in favor of the transfer; Jefferson was not. * * * [The BOE] took no official 

position on the matter and simply submitted procedural exhibits for the administrative 

record." (Mar. 3, 2021 BOE Brief at 3.) Jefferson Township notes that if it had not been 

permitted to intervene in Lucas I, the territory at issue would have already transferred. This 

point is well taken. When the trial court issued its first adverse decision, it was Jefferson 

Township, not the BOE, that successfully appealed to this court. It is also telling that the 

BOE, again, declined to file an appellate brief in this case explaining its position. 

{¶ 12} If permitted to intervene, Jefferson Township, as it did in Lucas I, would be 

able to defend against the transfer of territory and, if the trial court's ultimate ruling in the 

case is adverse to its interest, bring an appeal. As the BOE has declined to consistently 

participate in this case, Jefferson Township will undoubtedly bring a necessary element to 

the litigation as a defense against the proposed land transfer. Given the facts and 
No. 21AP-138 9 

procedural history of the parties, as well as established precedent that Civ.R. 24(A) is to be 

liberally construed in favor of intervention, the trial court's denial of Jefferson Township's 

motion to intervene constitutes an abuse of discretion. 

{¶ 13} In reaching its decision to deny Jefferson Township's motion to intervene, 

the trial court based its decision solely on the erroneous determination that Jefferson 

Township's interests were adequately represented by existing parties and did not address 

the remaining three factors required to grant a motion to intervene. Accordingly, the 

appropriate remedy is to remand the case to the trial court to complete this analysis. For 

these reasons, we remand the case for the trial court to resolve the remaining factors 

relevant to Jefferson Township's motion to intervene. 

{¶ 14} Based on the foregoing reasons, Jefferson Township's sole assignment of 

error is sustained. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

{¶ 15} Having sustained appellant's sole assignment of error, we reverse the 

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and the case is remanded for 

further proceedings in accordance with this decision. 

Judgment reversed; 

case remanded. 

BROWN and SADLER, JJ., concur. 

_____________