Court Opinion

ID: 9964342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 18:10:57.605481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:19.439478
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Freedom Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2024-Ohio-1645.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                       ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                            PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel.                                  CASE NO. 2023-P-0069
BRIAN M. AMES,

                 Relator-Appellant,                    Civil Appeal from the
                                                       Court of Common Pleas
        - vs -

FREEDOM TOWNSHIP                                       Trial Court No. 2021 CV 00421
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

                 Respondent-Appellee.

                                              OPINION

                                     Decided: April 29, 2024
                                Judgment: Reversed and remanded

Brian M. Ames, pro se, 2632 Ranfield Road, Mogadore, OH 44260 (Relator-Appellant).

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Brett R. Bencze, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent-
Appellee).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Brian Ames, appeals the trial court’s judgment on remand from

this court in State ex rel. Ames v. Freedom Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 11th Dist. Portage No.

2022-P-0005, 2023-Ohio-343 (“Ames v. Freedom Twp. I”). Appellant specifically asserts

that the trial court failed to award him all court costs pursuant to R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a). For

the following reasons, the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is

reversed and remanded to award Appellant all court costs.
       {¶2}   This case originated when Appellant filed a petition in mandamus in the

lower court alleging that Appellee had committed five violations of R.C. 121.22, the Open

Meetings Act (“OMA”). Appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court found

that Appellee had violated the OMA alleged in Counts 1, 2, and 3, but found no violations

as to Counts 4 and 5 and dismissed them. It further found that the violations in Counts 1

and 2 were “identical, technical in nature and were undertaken without intent to deceive”

and thus ordered one civil forfeiture in the amount of $500. The court also ordered one

$500 civil forfeiture pertaining to Count 3.

       {¶3}   Appellant timely appealed that judgment in Ames v. Freedom Twp. I. He

raised six assignments of error. In relevant part, Appellant asserted that the trial court

was required to issue injunctions as to each of Counts 1, 2, and 3, and that the court was

therefore required to award him all court costs.

       {¶4}   On appeal, this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the

case to the trial court “for further proceedings related to Counts 4 and 5; to issue an

injunction as required by R.C. 121.22(I)(1) in connection with Counts 1 and 2 for the

Board's failure to establish a rule compliant with R.C. 121.22(F); to issue an injunction as

required by R.C. 121.22(I)(1) in connection with Count 3 for the Board's holding an

executive session for a purpose not established by law; and to issue appropriate civil

forfeitures for each injunction issued and to award court costs as required by R.C.

121.22(I)(2)(a).” State ex rel. Ames v. Freedom Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 11th Dist. Portage

No. 2022-P-0005, 2023-Ohio-343, ¶ 38.

       {¶5}   On remand, the trial court followed our directives, except as to awarding

Appellant all court costs. The trial court’s September 12, 2023 judgment entry on remand

                                               2

Case No. 2023-P-0069
addressed court costs, stating: “This appellate decision ordered that court costs be taxed

equally between the two parties. In view of this Court’s verdicts announced herein, this

Court awards Plaintiff his further court costs incurred since remand of this case to this

Court by the Court of Appeals.”

       {¶6}   Appellant timely appeals and raises one assignment of error:

       {¶7}   “The trial court committed reversible error by failing to award all court costs

to Mr. Ames.”

       {¶8}   In Ames v. Freedom Twp. I, ¶ 24, this Court analyzed Appellant’s

assignment of error concerning court costs. We explained:

              The parties herein also agree that the court erred by failing to
              award Mr. Ames all court costs. R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a) states in
              pertinent part “[i]f the court of common pleas issues an
              injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section, * * * shall
              award to that party all court costs * * *.”As discussed under
              Mr. Ames’ second assignment of error, the trial court should
              have issued [two] injunctions as to the violations of the OMA
              set forth in Counts 1, 2 and 3. The statutory language again
              uses the imperative “shall,” i.e., the award of court costs is not
              discretionary. See Dohm, supra, at ¶ 16. Accordingly, the
              failure of the trial court to award court costs is reversible error.
              (Emphasis added).

       {¶9}   On remand from this Court, the trial court issued two injunctions; one as to

the violations of OMA alleged in Counts 1 and 2, and one as to Count 3.                     R.C.

121.22(I)(2)(a) provides that if the trial court “issues an injunction pursuant to division

(I)(1) of this section” (which it did), the trial court is then required to award the complaining

party “all court costs.” (Emphasis added). We cannot discern from this record why the

trial court awarded Appellant only “his further court costs incurred since remand of this

case to this Court by the Court of Appeals.”           But, R.C.121.22(I)(2)(a) is clear and

                                               3

Case No. 2023-P-0069
unambiguous in that the trial court, in this instance, must award Appellant all court costs

associated with the original proceedings.

       {¶10} Accordingly, Appellant’s assignment of error has merit.

       {¶11} The judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is reversed.

This matter is remanded for the trial court to award Appellant all court costs associated

with the proceedings below as required under R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.

                                            4

Case No. 2023-P-0069