[Cite as Wilkins v. Harrisburg, 2020-Ohio-886.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Paula J. Wilkins, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : Nos. 18AP-809 

 & 

v. : 19AP-386 

 (C.P.C. No. 12CV-14070)

The Village of Harrisburg et al., : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendants-Appellees. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on March 10, 2020 

 

On brief: Paula J. Wilkins, pro se. Argued: Paula J. 

Wilkins.

On brief: Peterson Conners LLP, and Istvan Gajary, for 

appellees. Argued: Istvan Gajary.

 

APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

LUPER SCHUSTER, J. 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Paula J. Wilkins, pro se, appeals from a decision of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entering judgment in favor of defendantsappellees, The Village of Harrisburg ("the Village") and the individual council members of 

the Harrisburg Village Council, and from a judgment entry denying her motion for new 

trial. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 2} In 2012, Wilkins filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus, declaratory 

judgment, injunctive relief, sanctions, and civil damages related to the Village's rezoning of 

property owned by Larry Taylor. Wilkins named the defendants as the Village of 

Harrisburg, several Village of Harrisburg Council members in their official and individual 

capacities, the Harrisburg Fiscal Officer in her official and individual capacity, several 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 2 

former members of the Harrisburg Council in their individual capacity, the Village of 

Harrisburg Mayor in her individual capacity (together the "Harrisburg defendants"), 

Taylor, and the Ohio Attorney General. Through her complaint, Wilkins challenged the 

Village's passage of two ordinances in 2010 related to the rezoning of Taylor's property, 

including an allegation that the Harrisburg defendants violated her constitutional rights by 

failing to notify her of the proposed rezoning and depriving her of her hearing rights prior 

to rezoning. 

{¶ 3} The trial court granted the motion to dismiss of the Ohio Attorney General. 

Subsequently, the Harrisburg defendants and Taylor each filed a motion to dismiss, and 

the trial court converted those motions into motions for summary judgment. On 

November 14, 2014, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision granting the motions 

for summary judgment in favor of Taylor and the Harrisburg defendants. 

{¶ 4} Wilkins appealed the decision of the trial court, and this court affirmed in 

part and reversed in part. Wilkins v. Village of Harrisburg, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-1028, 

2015-Ohio-5472 ("Wilkins I"). Specifically, this court determined Wilkins had sufficiently 

established that her property was "adjacent" to Taylor's property such that she may have 

standing to bring a declaratory judgment action. Wilkins I at ¶ 35. Accordingly, we 

remanded the matter to the trial court "to consider, pursuant to the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 

standard, whether [Wilkins] has established standing by sufficiently pleading the elements 

of injury and causation."1 Wilkins I at ¶ 42.

{¶ 5} On remand to the trial court, the Harrisburg defendants renewed their 

motion to dismiss on April 4, 2016, and the trial court denied the motion on June 30, 2016. 

The parties also attempted to resolve the dispute through mediation but were unsuccessful. 

In their answer to Wilkins' complaint filed July 13, 2016, the Harrisburg defendants raised 

their immunity as a political subdivision and its employees as affirmative defenses under 

R.C. Chapter 2744. 

{¶ 6} Eventually, the Harrisburg defendants decided to rescind the two ordinances 

at issue in the case. In response to the decision to rescind the ordinances, Wilkins filed a 

 

1 We affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Wilkins' mandamus action, but we reversed the trial court's 

dismissal of her declaratory judgment action. 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 3 

pretrial statement that she was additionally seeking payment of $10,000 for her allegation 

that the Harrisburg defendants "willfully, knowingly and maliciously violated [her] 

constitutional rights" and cost her "unnecessary expense." (Feb. 20, 2017 Final Pretrial 

Statement at 2.) The Harrisburg defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on 

February 27, 2017 again invoking immunity due to their status as elected officials exercising 

a legislative act in a rezoning matter. Although the trial court denied their motion for 

summary judgment on March 1, 2017, the Harrisburg defendants renewed their immunity 

argument in an oral motion before the trial court at a March 6, 2017 hearing. The trial court 

agreed with the Harrisburg defendants that political subdivision immunity barred Wilkins' 

claims and dismissed Wilkins' case, journalizing that dismissal in a March 20, 2017 

judgment entry of dismissal. 

{¶ 7} Wilkins again appealed to this court. In a November 2, 2017 decision, this 

court determined that the trial court erred in granting the oral motion to dismiss of the 

Harrisburg defendants on the issue of political subdivision immunity. Wilkins v. Village of 

Harrisburg, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-274, 2017-Ohio-8551, ¶ 40 ("Wilkins II"). This court 

reasoned that, given the requirements of notice pleading, it could not say that Wilkins could 

prove no set of circumstances in which appellees' conduct would fall outside political 

subdivision immunity, thereby entitling Wilkins to relief. The Harrisburg defendants then 

filed an application for en banc consideration or, in the alternative, reconsideration. 

Wilkins v. Village of Harrisburg, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-274, 2018-Ohio-759 ("Wilkins III"). 

In a March 1, 2018 decision, this court denied the Harrisburg defendants' application for 

en banc consideration or, alternatively, reconsideration, and clarified its decision in Wilkins 

II, stating:

On remand, the remaining allegations of the complaint with 

respect to Wilkins' third claim will stand or fall on the record 

that is developed before the trial court. The trial court can then 

examine all of the alleged conduct of appellees and characterize 

each action as legislative, administrative, or outside the scope 

of either. * * * The degree of immunity will depend on the 

results of that determination. 

Wilkins III at ¶ 9. 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 4 

{¶ 8} On remand, the trial court conducted a trial on September 17, 2018. 

Following the trial, in which Wilkins called two witnesses and submitted numerous 

documents into evidence, the trial court ruled in favor of the Harrisburg defendants. 

Specifically, the trial court found "there was no evidence submitted that the [Harrisburg 

defendants'] actions were willful, knowingly and/or malicious toward [Wilkins]. In 

addition, [Wilkins] submitted no evidence that the actions of the [Harrisburg defendants] 

in depriving her of a hearing caused her any damage." (Sept. 19, 2018 Decision at 2.) 

Further, the trial court found "all actions taken by the [Harrisburg defendants] in depriving 

[Wilkins] of a hearing on the zoning ordinances were done in their legislative function." 

(Decision at 2.) Thus, because Wilkins failed to prove the actions of the Harrisburg 

defendants were a willful, knowing, and malicious violation of her constitutional rights, the 

trial court entered judgment in favor of the Harrisburg defendants. The trial court 

journalized its findings and decision in a September 19, 2018 findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and an October 25, 2018 judgment entry. 

{¶ 9} Following the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law but prior to 

the trial court's final judgment, Wilkins filed a motion for new trial on October 3, 2018 

pursuant to Civ.R. 59. The Harrisburg defendants opposed the motion. In a May 21, 2019 

judgment entry, the trial court denied Wilkins' motion for new trial. Specifically, the trial 

court found the evidence Wilkins relied upon in support of her motion was neither new 

evidence within the meaning of Civ.R. 59 nor was the substance of the evidence sufficient 

to disturb the court's prior judgment. Wilkins timely appeals from both the October 25, 

2018 judgment entry rendering judgment in favor of the Harrisburg defendants and from 

the May 21, 2019 judgment entry denying her motion for new trial. This court sua sponte 

consolidated the matter for purposes of appeal. 

II. Assignments of Error 

{¶ 10} Wilkins assigns the following errors for our review: 

[1.] To the prejudice of the appellant, the court abused its 

discretion by having rendered judgment against the plaintiff 

and in favor of all defendants on plaintiff's remaining claims as 

decision was based on false and/or misleading testimony of 

defendant Patsy Frost. 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 5 

[2.] To the prejudice of the appellant, the court abused its 

discretion by ruling the actions of the defendants in depriving 

appellant of a hearing on the zoning ordinances were done in 

their legislative function. 

[3.] To the prejudice of the appellant, the court abused its 

discretion by failing to hear and/or address the issues raised by 

appellant that the witness(s) had committed perjury during 

their testimony. 

[4.] To the prejudice of the appellant, the court abused its 

discretion when it failed to give appropriate weight to the 

evidence and testimony of the appellant. 

[5.] To the prejudice of the appellant, the court abused its 

discretion when it failed to grant appellant a new trial. 

[6.] To the prejudice of the appellant, the court abused its 

discretion by finding that appellees violated appellant's rights 

of due process but rendered judgment against appellant and in 

favor of the appellees and failed to award compensatory and/or 

punitive damages to appellant. 

III. First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Assignments of Error – Trial 

 Court's Judgment in Favor of Harrisburg Defendants 

{¶ 11} Wilkins' first, second, third, fourth, and sixth assignments of error are 

interrelated, and we address them jointly. Taken together, these five assignments of error 

assert the trial court erred when it entered judgment in favor of the Harrisburg defendants 

following trial. More specifically, Wilkins argues the trial court erred in concluding the 

actions of the Harrisburg defendants falls within political subdivision immunity, and she 

challenges the weight the trial court assigned to the evidence in support of that conclusion. 

{¶ 12} Through these five assignments of error, Wilkins asserts the trial court's 

conclusion that the Harrisburg defendants are entitled to immunity as employees of a 

political subdivision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. "Judgments supported 

by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not 

be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence." C.E. 

Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978), syllabus. In determining whether 

a civil judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court is guided 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 6 

by the presumption that the findings of the trial court are correct. Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. 

Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). "The underlying rationale of giving deference to 

the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to 

view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use 

these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony." Id. Thus, the 

relative weight to be given witness testimony and the credibility to be afforded each of the 

witnesses is a question for the trier of fact. Rahman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 10th Dist. 

No. 05AP-439, 2006-Ohio-3013, ¶ 36. 

{¶ 13} During the extensive litigation history of this case, the Harrisburg defendants 

conceded it did not comply with R.C. 713.12 when it failed to notify Wilkins of a public 

hearing on the two ordinances related to the rezoning of Taylor's property. As a result of 

this admission, the Village withdrew the zoning legislation during the pendency of the 

litigation. Despite the Village's withdrawal of the two ordinances, Wilkins argues the trial 

court erred by finding that the actions of the Harrisburg defendants leading up to the 

passage of those ordinances were protected by political subdivision immunity.

{¶ 14} R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) sets forth the immunity of employees of political 

subdivisions and the exceptions thereto.2 Stevens v. Maxson, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-672, 

2013-Ohio-5792, ¶ 12. As relevant here, R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) provides immunity for a 

political subdivision employee who acts within the scope of his or her duties unless "[t]he 

employee's acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or 

reckless manner." The Supreme Court of Ohio recently explained the different degrees of 

care that the General Assembly requires of a political subdivision or an employee of a 

political subdivision in order to impose liability. In Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 

380, 2012-Ohio-5711, the Supreme Court clarified that "[t]he terms 'willful,' 'wanton,' and 

'reckless' as used in [the political subdivision liability] statutes are not interchangeable." 

Id. at ¶ 40.

{¶ 15} Willful misconduct, as defined by the Supreme Court, "implies an intentional 

deviation from a clear duty or from a definite rule of conduct, a deliberate purpose not to 

 

2 The trial court focused on political subdivision rather than absolute legislative immunity and we will 

similarly focus our analysis on political subdivision immunity. 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 7 

discharge some duty necessary to safety, or purposefully doing wrongful acts with 

knowledge or appreciation of the likelihood of resulting injury." Id. at ¶ 32, citing Tighe v. 

Diamond, 149 Ohio St. 520, 527 (1948). Wanton misconduct "is the failure to exercise any 

care toward those to whom a duty of care is owed in circumstances in which there is great 

probability that harm will result." Id. at ¶ 33, citing Hawkins v. Ivy, 50 Ohio St.2d 114, 117-

18 (1977). Lastly, reckless conduct is "the conscious disregard of or indifference to a known 

or obvious risk of harm to another that is unreasonable under the circumstances and is 

substantially greater than negligent conduct." Id. at ¶ 34, citing Thompson v. NcNeill, 53 

Ohio St.3d 102, 104-05 (1990).

{¶ 16} Wilkins presents various arguments as to why the trial court erroneously 

weighed the evidence presented during the trial to reach its factual conclusions. However, 

having reviewed the record, we find competent, credible evidence supports the trial court's 

conclusion that although the Harrisburg defendants did not comply with R.C. 713.12 when 

they did not notify Wilkins of a hearing on the proposed rezoning, there is no evidence to 

suggest their conduct in violating R.C. 713.12 was willful, knowing, or malicious. 

Additionally, as we noted above, the relative weight to be given witness testimony and the 

credibility to be afforded each of the witnesses is a question for the trial court. Rahman at 

¶ 36. Wilkins continues, as she did in the trial court, to assert her theory that the Harrisburg 

defendants conspired against her to purposefully deprive her of her hearing rights. 

However, her theory is without evidentiary support. Thus, we find competent, credible 

evidence supports the trial court's finding that the conduct was not a willful, knowing, or 

malicious violation of Wilkins' rights. 

{¶ 17} For these reasons, we overrule Wilkins' first, second, third, fourth, and sixth 

assignments of error. 

IV. Fifth Assignment of Error – Motion for New Trial 

{¶ 18} In her fifth assignment of error, Wilkins argues the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying her motion for new trial. 

{¶ 19} As relevant here, Civ.R. 59(A) provides that a court may grant a motion for 

new trial upon any of the following grounds:

(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, magistrate, 

or prevailing party, or any order of the court or magistrate, or 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 8 

abuse of discretion, by which an aggrieved party was prevented 

from having a fair trial; 

(2) Misconduct of the jury or prevailing party; 

* * * 

(6) The judgment is not sustained by the weight of the 

evidence; however, only one new trial may be granted on the 

weight of the evidence in the same case; 

(7) The judgment is contrary to law[.] 

Civ.R. 59(A)(1), (2), (6), and (7). 

{¶ 20} The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial, pursuant to Civ.R. 59, 

lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not reverse 

that decision absent an abuse of discretion. Sharp v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 

307, 312 (1995). An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error or law or judgment; 

it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. 

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

{¶ 21} Wilkins' argument in support of her fifth assignment of error is a restatement 

of the arguments she made in her first, second, third, fourth, and sixth assignments of error. 

More specifically, Wilkins argues the trial court erroneously entered judgment in favor of 

the Village and the Harrisburg defendants, asserting that judgment relied on allegedly false 

and perjured testimony. In support of her motion for new trial, Wilkins relies on minutes 

from several meetings before the Village's council that Wilkins claims contradict the 

testimony the Harrisburg defendants provided at trial. This is the same information 

Wilkins presented during her trial, and the trial court had the opportunity to assess the 

credibility of all witnesses during the trial. Having already determined in our disposition 

of Wilkins' first, second, third, fourth, and sixth assignments of error that the trial court did 

not err in finding the Harrisburg defendants were entitled to immunity on Wilkins' claims, 

Wilkins' arguments similarly do not support her motion for new trial. Accordingly, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilkins' motion for new trial, and we overrule 

Wilkins' fifth assignment of error. 
Nos. 18AP-809 and 19AP-386 9 

V. Disposition 

{¶ 22} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in concluding the 

Village and the Harrisburg defendants were entitled to immunity as employees of a political 

subdivision, and the trial court did not err in rendering judgment in favor of appellees. 

Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilkins' motion for new 

trial. Having overruled Wilkins' six assignments of error, we affirm the judgments of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Judgments affirmed. 

BROWN and BRUNNER, JJ., concur.