Court Opinion

ID: 9947473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 21:09:44.844578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:30.590164
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Olentangy Preparatory Academy v. Howland Twp. Local School Dist., 2024-Ohio-783.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               TRUMBULL COUNTY

OLENTANGY PREPARATORY                                CASE NO. 2023-T-0075
ACADEMY,

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

HOWLAND TWP LOCAL                                    Trial Court No. 2022 CV 01180
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

                 Defendants-Appellees.

                                            OPINION

                                      Decided: March 4, 2024
                                       Judgment: Affirmed

Matthew W. Onest, Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., LPA, 6715 Tippecanoe
Road, 2C, Canfield, OH 44406; and Kyle W. Rea, Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty
Co., LPA, 4775 Munson Street, N.W., P.O. Box 36963, Canton, OH 44735 (For Plaintiff-
Appellant).

Christian M. Williams and Brian J. DeSantis, Pepple & Waggoner, Ltd., Crown Centre
Building, 5005 Rockside Road, Suite 260, Independence, OH 44131 (For Defendants-
Appellees).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

        {¶1}     Plaintiff-appellant, Olentangy Preparatory Academy (“OPA”), appeals from

the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment

to defendants-appellees, Howland Twp Local School District and Howland Local School

District Board of Education (collectively, “Howland”), on OPA’s claims for declaratory

judgment and injunctive relief.
       {¶2}   The case involves whether Howland was required to offer to sell an unused

school facility to OPA pursuant to R.C. 3313.411(B)(1), which requires a board of

education to offer to lease or sell any unused school facilities to the governing boards of

community schools that are located within the territory of the school district. The trial

court determined OPA is not a community school established under R.C. Chapter 3314

and is not located within the Howland Local School District.

       {¶3}   OPA raises a single assignment of error, contending the trial court erred by

granting summary judgment to Howland.

       {¶4}   After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find the trial court

properly granted summary judgment to Howland. Even assuming OPA is a community

school established under R.C. Chapter 3314, the record on summary judgment indicates

it is not located within the territory of the Howland Local School District. Thus, OPA’s sole

assignment of error is without merit, and we affirm the judgment of the Trumbull County

Court of Common Pleas.

                          Substantive and Procedural History

       {¶5}   On March 9, 2022, OPA incorporated as an Ohio nonprofit corporation with

its principal office located in Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. On March 14, 2022,

OPA’s governing authority adopted a resolution authorizing OPA to negotiate and enter

into a charter contract with St. Aloysius to establish a community school.

       {¶6}   On May 7, 2022, OPA and St. Aloysius entered into the charter contract.

The contract lists OPA’s “corporate principal place of business” as “1550 Old Henderson

Rd. Suite W110, Columbus, OH 43220,” and states, “the School is located in the

Columbus City School District (school district).” (Emphasis sic.) Section 5.1, entitled

                                             2

Case No. 2023-T-0075
“Location of Facility,” states, “The facility to be used for the School will be maintained at

_________________________.”          (Emphasis and highlighting sic.)       Section 11.17,

entitled “Changes or Modifications,” provides, “This Charter constitutes the entire

agreement among the parties and any changes or modifications of this Charter shall be

made and agreed to in writing, authorized and executed by both parties.”

       {¶7}   In a letter dated May 26, 2022, St. Aloysius stated that it approved OPA’s

“application” to change its location to the Howland Local School District. On June 22,

2022, OPA’s governing board adopted a resolution ratifying the charter contract without

amendments.

       {¶8}   On the same date, OPA’s governing board adopted a resolution requesting

that St. Aloysius suspend the school’s operations for up to one academic year because it

had been unable to find a suitable facility within the Howland Local School District.

Thereafter, St. Aloysius issued a notice of suspension pursuant to R.C. 3314.072.

       {¶9}   On August 15, 2022, OPA leased 1,200 square feet of office space at 8098

East Market Street, #3, Warren, Ohio 44483.

       {¶10} On August 24, 2022, OPA filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive

relief against appellee Howland Twp Local School District. On the same date, OPA filed

an amended complaint against both appellees. OPA alleged it is an Ohio community

school established under R.C. Chapter 3314; it is located at 8098 East Market Street,

Warren, Ohio 44483, which is within the territory of the Howland Local School District;

Howland owns an “unused school facility” located at 863 North Road, SE, Warren, Ohio

44484; Howland is required to offer to sell the facility to OPA pursuant to R.C.

3313.411(B)(1); and Howland refused to do so despite repeated requests. OPA sought

                                             3

Case No. 2023-T-0075
a declaratory judgment that Howland is required to offer to sell the facility to it pursuant

to R.C. 3313.411 and an injunction prohibiting Howland from selling the facility without

complying with the statute.

       {¶11} Howland filed an answer denying OPA’s allegations. Following discovery,

Howland filed a motion for summary judgment. OPA filed a brief in opposition, and

Howland filed a reply brief. On August 24, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment granting

summary judgment to Howland. It found that OPA failed to comply with the statutory

requirements in R.C. Chapter 3314 to establish itself as a community school, and that

even if it had, it is not located within the territory of the Howland Local School District.

       {¶12} OPA appealed and raises the following assignment of error:

       {¶13} “The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Appellees, the

Howland Twp. Local School Dist. and the Howland Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., on

Appellant, Olentangy Preparatory Academy’s claims for declaratory judgment and

injunctive relief.”

                                    Standard of Review

       {¶14} We review summary judgment de novo, i.e., independently and without

deference to the trial court’s findings. Smathers v. Glass, 172 Ohio St.3d 84, 2022-Ohio-

4595, 222 N.E.3d 554, ¶ 30. Summary judgment is appropriate only when (1) there is no

genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one

conclusion when viewing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, and that

conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d

102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996); Civ.R. 56(C).

                                               4

Case No. 2023-T-0075
      {¶15} “[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court

of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial

court which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element

of the nonmoving party’s claim.” Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d

264 (1996). “[I]f the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party

then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial * * *.” Id. at 293. “[I]f the nonmovant does not so

respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving

party.” Id.

                                   Legal Requirements

      {¶16} This case involves the application of R.C. 3313.411(B)(1), which provides:

      {¶17} “Except as provided in section 3313.412 of the Revised Code, on and after

June 30, 2011, any school district board of education shall offer any unused school

facilities it owns in its corporate capacity for lease or sale to the governing authorities of

community schools, the boards of trustees of any college-preparatory boarding schools,

and the governing bodies of any STEM schools, that are located within the territory of

the district. Not later than sixty days after the district board makes the offer, interested

governing authorities, boards of trustees, and governing bodies shall notify the district

treasurer in writing of the intention to lease or purchase the property.

      {¶18} “The district board shall give priority to the governing authorities of high-

performing community schools that are located within the territory of the district.”

(Emphasis added.)

                                             5

Case No. 2023-T-0075
       {¶19} “‘Community school’ means a community school established under Chapter

3314. of the Revised Code.” R.C. 3313.411(A)(2).

       {¶20} Ohio adopted charter-school legislation when the Ohio General Assembly

enacted R.C. Chapter 3314 in 1997. State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers

v. State Bd. of Edn., 111 Ohio St.3d 568, 2006-Ohio-5512, 857 N.E.2d 1148, ¶ 5. As

legislatively created, community schools are independently governed public schools that

are funded from state revenues. Id. Once created, a community school may sue and be

sued, acquire facilities, contract for services, and enter into contracts with its sponsor

under R.C. Chapter 3314. R.C. 3314.01(B).

       {¶21} Each community school is governed by a contract between the governing

authority of the school and its sponsor.     Ohio Congress at ¶ 9; see R.C. 3314.03.

Sponsors are responsible for monitoring their performance and compliance with

applicable standards and requirements. Ohio Congress at ¶ 7. In turn, sponsors are

monitored and overseen by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. Id. “A

copy of every contract entered into under [R.C. 3314.03] shall be filed with the director of

education and workforce,1 who shall make available on its web site a copy of every

approved, executed contract * * *.” R.C. 3314.03; see also Ohio Adm.Code 3301-102-

05(B) (“A sponsor shall submit a copy of each * * * executed community school contract,

and any amendments thereto, * * * within ten business days of execution.”)2

       {¶22} “Each contract entered into between a sponsor and the governing authority

of a community school shall specify” 33 particular items. R.C. 3314.03(A); see R.C.

1. Prior to October 3, 2023, the “superintendent of public instruction.”
2. Such documents are currently available at https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Community-
Schools/Community-Schools-Documents (accessed February 21, 2024).
                                             6

Case No. 2023-T-0075
3314.03(A)(1)-(33). R.C. 3314.03(A)(9) provides that the contract shall contain “[a]n

addendum * * * outlining the facilities to be used,” including “[a] detailed description of

each facility used for instructional purposes”; “[t]he annual costs associated with leasing

each facility that are paid by or on behalf of the school”; “[t]he annual mortgage principal

and interest payments that are paid by the school”; and “[t]he name of the lender or

landlord, identified as such, and the lender’s or landlord’s relationship to the operator, if

any.” Similarly, R.C. 3314.05(A) provides that “[t]he contract between the community

school and the sponsor shall specify the facilities to be used for the community school

and the method of acquisition.” Absent specific exceptions, “no community school shall

be established in more than one school district under the same contract.” Id.

                                         Analysis

       {¶23} As stated, the trial court determined OPA is not a community school

established under R.C. Chapter 3314, and even if it were, it is not located within the

territory of the Howland Local School District.

       {¶24} OPA contends that the trial court incorrectly assumed that its charter

contract must strictly comply with R.C. 3314.03(A).        According to OPA, substantial

compliance is sufficient. OPA makes this argument for the first time on appeal. Where a

party asserts an argument for the first time on appeal, it is waived. State ex rel. Masiella

v. Brimfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2017-Ohio-2934, 91 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 43 (11th Dist.).

       {¶25} In any event, we find the trial court’s second determination to be dispositive

of this appeal. Even assuming OPA is a community school established under R.C.

Chapter 3314, the record on summary judgment indicates it is not located within the

territory of the Howland Local School District.

                                             7

Case No. 2023-T-0075
       {¶26} OPA concedes it has not opened a school at any location, much less in the

Howland Local School District. In addition, OPA’s charter contract expressly states that

“the School is located in the Columbus City School District (school district).” (Emphasis

sic.) Section 5.1, entitled “Location of Facility,” states, “The facility to be used for the

School will be maintained at _________________________.”                   (Emphasis and

highlighting sic.). The contract also lists OPA’s “corporate principal place of business” as

“1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite W110, Columbus, OH 43220.” Likewise, OPA’s articles

of incorporation list its principal office location as Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio.

       {¶27} OPA contends that St. Aloysius’ May 26, 2022, letter constitutes a valid

modification to the contract that changes its location from Columbus to Howland.

However, section 11.17 of the contract, entitled “Changes or Modifications,” provides,

“This Charter constitutes the entire agreement among the parties and any changes or

modifications of this Charter shall be made and agreed to in writing, authorized and

executed by both parties.”     OPA provided no evidence that its governing authority

authorized and executed a writing that modified the contract. In fact, on June 22, 2022,

i.e., nearly a month after St. Aloysius’ letter, OPA’s governing authority approved the

charter contract, including the provisions quoted above, without any amendments.

       {¶28} OPA counters that it and St. Aloysius waived the contract’s formalities for

modifications and that Howland lacks standing to challenge the modification’s validity.

Once again, OPA raises these arguments for the first time on appeal.

       {¶29} Even if we reviewed them, however, they would lack merit.

       {¶30} “Ohio boards of education are creations of statute, and their authority is

derived from and strictly limited to powers that are expressly granted by statute or clearly

                                             8

Case No. 2023-T-0075
implied therefrom.” Cincinnati City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Conners, 132 Ohio St.3d

468, 2012-Ohio-2447, 974 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 9. To comply with its statutory obligations under

R.C. 3313.411(B)(1), a school board must necessarily identify all community schools

located within the territory of the district. To do so, a school board must be permitted to

rely on the documents posted on the Department of Education and Workforce’s website.

See R.C. 3314.03; Ohio Adm.Code 3301-102-05(B).

      {¶31} In sum, Howland met its burden on summary judgment to establish that

OPA is not located within the territory of the Howland Local School District. OPA did not

meet its reciprocal burden to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently,

the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Howland.

      {¶32} OPA’s sole assignment of error is without merit.

      {¶33} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                            9

Case No. 2023-T-0075