Opinion ID: 6334871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: {¶ 9} This case was decided on summary judgment and is therefore subject to de novo review. Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54, 2010-Ohio- 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 4505, 936 N.E.2d 481, ¶ 29. Summary judgment will be granted when “the evidence, properly submitted, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Todd Dev. Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461, 2008-Ohio-87, 880 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 11; Civ.R. 56(C). {¶ 10} R.C. 9.39 states: “All public officials are liable for all public money received or collected by them or by their subordinates under color of office.” We examined the history and components of that statute in Cordray v. Internatl. Preparatory School, 128 Ohio St.3d 50, 2010-Ohio-6136, 941 N.E.2d 1170, ¶ 12-27. As in Cordray, that legal discussion is relevant here, but not dispositive. The key question in Cordray was factual: whether the defendant and her subordinates had “received or collected public money under color of office.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 28. We remanded the cause to the trial court for a determination of whether the defendant’s responsibilities at the preparatory school had “included the receipt or collection of public money, or whether she [had] supervised employees who received or collected public money under color of office.” Id. at ¶ 29. {¶ 11} The same issue presents itself in this case: Did Burns receive or collect public money under color of office? It is quite clear that he did not. The person who received or collected public money in this case was Shye. Even though the money could not have been received or collected without Burns’s requesting funds from the state or federal government, Burns himself did not receive or collect those funds. {¶ 12} Among the strongest support for Burns’s position are published opinions of the attorney general. “The language of R.C. 9.39 with respect to the liability of public officials is plain and unambiguous. Public officials are held liable, pursuant to R.C. 9.39, only for public money that they or their subordinates receive or collect.” 1993 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 93-004, at 2-25. “Thus, a public 4 January Term, 2022 official will be held personally liable if public moneys that come into his possession or custody in his official capacity are lost.” 1994 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 94-048, at 2-239. {¶ 13} Though the words “received” and “collected” are not defined in any statutory provision related to R.C. 9.39, we conclude that the attorney general and the court of appeals were correct in determining that both words encompass an element of control. See id.; Cordray, 128 Ohio St.3d 50, 2010-Ohio-6136, 941 N.E.2d 1170, at ¶ 12 (“That public officials are liable for the public funds they control is firmly entrenched in Ohio law”). The Oxford English Dictionary defines “collect” as “to receive money, to get paid.” III Oxford English Dictionary 476 (2d Ed.1989). And it defines “receive” as “[t]o take in one’s hand, or into one’s possession.” VIII Oxford English Dictionary at 314. These definitions comport with our conclusion in this case. In short, a person cannot collect or receive public money, let alone be held strictly liable for the misappropriation of that money, within the context of R.C. 9.39 without controlling it. The record is quite clear that Burns did not control the misappropriated funds: the money was never in his possession, nor did he exert any control over it. Moreover, because Shye was an independent contractor, hired and managed by New City’s board of directors, he was not Burns’s subordinate. {¶ 14} Burns has an obligation to “account for and disburse according to law moneys that have come into his hands by virtue of his being [a] public officer” of New City, Seward v. Natl. Sur. Co., 120 Ohio St. 47, 50, 165 N.E.537 (1929). The attorney general relies on Seward and State, for Use of Wyandot County v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 (1856), in support of his argument that Burns should be held liable for public money that was received under color of office. But in both of those cases, the defendants had received, collected, and physically controlled the funds for which loss they were found liable. Seward at 49; Harper at 610. The facts of this case establish, however, that the public money that was 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO misappropriated from New City was never in Burns’s control nor physically in his hands. Burns did not collect or receive the public money that was misappropriated; therefore, he did not control those funds. Neither did any of his subordinates. Shye, who pleaded guilty to the misappropriation of funds, was not Burns’s subordinate; he operated independently of Burns in his general job duties, and he certainly acted independently of Burns in embezzling funds from New City.