Court Opinion

ID: 9962146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 20:10:27.619548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:55.772988
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Gault v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas Clerk, 2024-Ohio-1530.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                               NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    MEDINA COUNTY

                               NATHAN GAULT, ETC., et al.,

                                       Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                                    v.

                         CLERK, MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF
                               COMMON PLEAS et al.

                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                    Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M

                                     Civil Appeal from the
                        Court of Common Pleas of Medina County, Ohio
                                    Case No. 20 CIV 0811

                                           BEFORE:
                         Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, Judges
                 Seventh District Court of Appeals, Sitting by Assignment
                                              and
           William A. Klatt, Retired Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
                                    Sitting by Assignment.

                                          JUDGMENT:
                                     Reversed and Remanded.

Atty. Patrick J. Perotti, Atty. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Atty. Frank A. Bartela, Dworken & Bernstein
Co., L.P.A. for Plaintiffs-Appellants and
                                                                                        –2–

Atty. John T. McLandrich, Atty. Terence L. Williams, Atty. Frank H. Scialdone, Mazanec,
Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A. for Defendants-Appellees.

                                  Dated: April 22, 2024

Robb, P.J.

        {¶1}   Appellant appeals the April 8, 2023 judgment granting Appellees’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings a second time. Appellant argues the trial court erred as a
matter of law when interpreting the applicable statute, which authorizes the clerk of courts
to charge a technology and computerization fee. We agree with Appellant and reverse
and remand.
                                      Statement of the Case
        {¶2}   Appellant, Nathan Gault, for himself and others similarly situated, filed a
class-action complaint in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas in October 2020.
As defendants, he named the Medina County Common Pleas Clerk of Courts, the Medina
County Treasurer, and the Medina County Board of Commissioners (collectively hereafter
Appellees). Appellant identified three causes of actions claiming he was overcharged for
unauthorized fees and costs in his separate divorce proceeding, like other individuals
similarly situated, based on Appellees’ misconstruction of Ohio Revised Code Chapter
2303.
        {¶3}   First, Appellant's complaint alleged the overall charges for computerization
of the clerk's office is in excess of its statutory authority. He avers he was a party in the
Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, case captioned
Amanda Gault v. Nathan Gault, Case No. 14DR0527, and at the conclusion of that case,
Appellees charged Appellant the costs set forth in the bills of cost attached to his
complaint, and Appellant paid these fees and costs detailed in the exhibits. Because
Appellees allegedly overcharged Appellant and others in the class in excess of the
amount permitted by statute, Appellant alleged he and the other potential class members
were damaged in the amount of the overcharged fees and costs plus interest.

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                       –3–

       {¶4}   For count two, Appellant contends Appellees charged him a clerk computer
operation fee in excess of the permissible one dollar. He contends Appellees similarly
overcharged other members of the proposed class and he and the other unnamed class
members were damaged as a result.
       {¶5}   Last, Appellant asserted an unjust enrichment claim contending Appellees
overcharged him, and other proposed class members, and Appellees were unjustly
enriched as a result of the overcharging. (October 19, 2020 Complaint.)
       {¶6}   In response, Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings raising several
alternative arguments. Appellees asserted in part that the Medina County Court of
Common Pleas was unable to consider and address Appellant's complaint because
Appellant was attempting to collaterally attack the domestic relations court's final
judgment via separate litigation. They also claimed because Appellant acknowledged
paying the fees he was now challenging, his arguments are moot or waived. (January
13, 2021 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.)
       {¶7}   Alternatively, Appellees asserted Appellant's claims failed as a matter of law
based on the plain language of the statutes authorizing the clerk of courts to award court
costs and computerization fees and Appellant's statutory interpretations were incorrect.
Last, Appellees argued the Medina County Clerk of Courts and the Medina County
Treasurer were not capable of being sued since they are not corporate entities, and as
such, the claims against them should fail. (January 13, 2021 Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.)
       {¶8}   Appellant opposed, and consistent with his complaint, he argued the
statutes were unambiguous and he and others were overcharged based on a plain
reading of the statutes.
       {¶9}   Appellant filed his first amended class action complaint in October of 2021
per the trial court's directive to clarify subject matter jurisdiction. His first amended
complaint identifies the same three claims for relief. In addition, Appellant contended the
clerk of courts charged him more than $500 in improper fees and surmised the clerk
overcharged the other potential class members collective charges in excess of $500,000.
Appellant's demand for judgment sought in part reimbursement of the amount of money
he paid in excess of what was allowed by law based on Appellees’ misconstruction of the

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                          –4–

applicable statutes and overcharging. The exhibits to the complaint consist of three bills
of costs from his domestic relations case, Case Number 14DR0527. The first Bill of
Costs, Exhibit A, is dated October 23, 2015. The second Bill of Costs, Exhibit B, is dated
October 12, 2017. And the third Bill of Costs, Exhibit C, is dated October 7, 2019.
(October 1, 2021 First Amended Complaint.)
       {¶10} This is the second time this case has been on appeal. The trial court initially
granted judgment on the pleadings based on res judicata. We reversed in Gault v. Clerk,
Medina Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 2022-Ohio-3955, 200 N.E.3d 646 (9th Dist.). On
remand, Appellees moved the court to stay discovery and address the remaining issues
raised in its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant opposed, but the court
granted the stay.
       {¶11} Thereafter, the trial court again granted Appellees judgment on the
pleadings. The court declined to dismiss two defendants and determine whether two of
the three named defendants were sui juris or capable of being sued. It also declined to
dismiss based on Appellees’ claim that Appellant’s claims are moot since he paid the
court costs at issue. The trial court held Appellee’ interpretation of the statute was correct,
and it concluded that Appellant and others similarly situated were not overcharged.
       {¶12} It explained the clerk was authorized to charge an additional one dollar for
computerization for each service. Thus, it concluded that because R.C. 2303.20 directs
the clerk to charge one dollar per each page for making a complete record, pursuant to
R.C. 2303.201(B)(1), the clerk may charge two dollars for each page. Thus, the trial court
granted Appellees judgment on the pleadings on each count of the amended complaint.
(April 8, 2023 Judgment.)
                            Fee Authorized Under R.C. 2303.201(B)(1)
       {¶13} Appellant’s sole assignment of error contends:
       “The Trial Court erred in dismissing Counts Two and Three, where the operative
statutes (R.C. 2303.20 and .201) do not permit the charges assessed against Plaintiff and
the putative class.”
       {¶14} Appellant contends the Medina County Clerk of Courts was correctly
charging $1.00 for each page of making the complete record, but incorrectly charging an
additional $1.00 for each page for the service of making the record under R.C.

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                       –5–

2303.201(B)(1).    Appellant claims the trial court committed an error of law in its
interpretation of the applicable section of the Revised Code. Instead, Appellant claims
the statute is clear in that it allows the clerk to charge an additional one dollar for each
service performed, not for each page included or covered by that service.
       {¶15} Appellant argues he and others similarly situated were improperly charged
a one dollar per page computerization fee based on the clerk’s erroneous reading of R.C.
2303.201(B)(1) and R.C. 2303.20(H). We agree and conclude the trial court’s decision
granting judgment on the pleadings on this basis is incorrect.
       {¶16} Appellant does not challenge any other aspect of the trial court’s decision,
and as such, our analysis is accordingly limited. App.R. 12(A)(1)(b); Rainy Day Rentals,
Inc. v. Next Gen. Properties, Inc., 2022-Ohio-3530, 198 N.E.3d 163, ¶ 11 (7th Dist.),
appeal not allowed, 168 Ohio St.3d 1531, 2023-Ohio-86, 200 N.E.3d 1169.
       {¶17} Civ.R. 12(C) motions are for resolving questions of law.         State ex rel.
Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570, 664 N.E.2d 931 (1996). Thus,
our review of a judgment on the pleadings is de novo. New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd.
of Edn. v. Buehrer Group Architecture & Eng., Inc., 157 Ohio St.3d 164, 2019-Ohio-2851,
133 N.E.3d 482, ¶ 8.
       {¶18} When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court's review
is limited to the allegations in the pleadings and the documents attached and incorporated
into the pleadings. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Olds, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27297,
2015-Ohio-3214, ¶ 22. “Dismissal is appropriate under Civ.R. 12(C) when (1) the court
construes as true, and in favor of the nonmoving party, the material allegations in the
complaint and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from those allegations and (2) it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to
relief.” Reister v. Gardner, 164 Ohio St.3d 546, 2020-Ohio-5484, 174 N.E.3d 713, ¶ 17.
       {¶19} The issue here is whether R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) authorizes the clerk to
charge an additional $1.00 technology and computerization fee for each page when it
makes the complete record and index or whether it is only to charge one additional $1.00
each time it “makes the complete record.”

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                         –6–

       {¶20} Chapter 2303 of the Revised Code governs Ohio’s common pleas clerks of
court and sets forth the statutory duties and responsibilities of the clerk. Pursuant to R.C.
2303.20, the clerk has the mandatory duty to charge certain fees as costs.
       {¶21} “Costs are * * * the statutory fees to which officers, witnesses, jurors, and
others are entitled for their services in an action and which the statutes authorize to be
taxed and included in the judgment.” In re Election of November 6, 1990 for the Office of
Atty. Gen. of Ohio, 62 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 577 N.E.2d 343 (1991) (a particular litigation
expense will not qualify as part of “costs” unless it is fixed and taxable according to
statute).
       {¶22} R.C. 2303.20, sets forth mandatory fees the clerk of courts is required to
charge, and states in part:
       [except in certain civil actions filed by inmates,] the clerk shall charge the
       following fees and no more:
       ***
       (B) Two dollars for taking each undertaking, bond, or recognizance;
       (C) Two dollars for issuing each writ, order, or notice, except subpoena;
       (D) Two dollars for each name for issuing subpoena, swearing witness,
       entering attendance, and certifying fees;
       ***
       (F) Two dollars for each page, for entering on journal, indexing, and posting
       on any docket;
       ***
       (H) One dollar for each page, for making complete record, including
       indexing;
       ***
       (L) One dollar for each certificate of fact under seal of the court, to be paid
       by the party demanding it * * *.
(Emphasis added.)
       {¶23} R.C. 2303.201 sets forth additional permissible fees for computer services
the clerk of courts may charge. The fees are in addition to the mandatory fees in R.C.
2303.20. R.C. 2303.201 states in part:

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                          –7–

      (A)(1) The court of common pleas of any county may determine that for the
      efficient operation of the court additional funds are required to computerize
      the court, to make available computerized legal research services, or to do
      both. Upon making a determination that additional funds are required for
      either or both of those purposes, the court shall authorize and direct the
      clerk of the court of common pleas to charge one additional fee, not to
      exceed six dollars, on the filing of each cause of action or appeal under
      divisions (A), (Q), and (U) of section 2303.20 of the Revised Code.
      (2) All fees collected under division (A)(1) of this section shall be paid to the
      county treasurer. * * *
      (3) If the court determines that the funds in the fund described in division
      (A)(2) of this section are more than sufficient to satisfy the purpose for which
      the additional fee described in division (A)(1) of this section was imposed,
      the court may declare a surplus in the fund and, subject to an appropriation
      by the board of county commissioners, expend those surplus funds, or upon
      an order of the court, subject to the court making an annual report available
      to the public listing the use of all such funds, expend those surplus funds,
      for other appropriate technological expenses of the court.
      (B)(1) The court of common pleas of any county may determine that, for the
      efficient operation of the court, additional funds are required to make
      technological advances in or to computerize the office of the clerk of the
      court of common pleas and, upon that determination, authorize and direct
      the clerk of the court of common pleas to charge an additional fee, not to
      exceed twenty dollars, on the filing of each cause of action or appeal, on
      the filing, docketing, and endorsing of each certificate of judgment, or on the
      docketing and indexing of each aid in execution or petition to vacate, revive,
      or modify a judgment under divisions (A), (P), (Q), (T), and (U) of section
      2303.20 of the Revised Code and not to exceed one dollar each for the
      services described in divisions (B), (C), (D), (F), (H), and (L) of section
      2303.20 of the Revised Code. Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, all
      moneys collected under division (B)(1) of this section shall be paid to the

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                       –8–

       county treasurer to be disbursed, upon an order of the court of common
       pleas and subject to appropriation by the board of county commissioners,
       in an amount no greater than the actual cost to the court of procuring and
       maintaining technology and computer systems for the office of the clerk of
       the court of common pleas.
(Emphasis added.)
       {¶24} “A question of statutory construction presents an issue of law that we
determine de novo on appeal.” Lang v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 134 Ohio
St.3d 296, 2012-Ohio-5366, 982 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 12. We review the statute to determine if
its meaning is clear, and if the legislature's intent is evident, we must give effect to the
unambiguously expressed intent. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (1984).
       {¶25} “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a
clear and definite meaning there is no occasion for resorting to rules of statutory
interpretation. An unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted.”        Sears v.
Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312, 55 N.E.2d 413 (1944), paragraph five of the syllabus.
       {¶26} Absent an ambiguity, “we will apply the statute as written and conduct no
further investigation.” State v. Hurd, 89 Ohio St.3d 616, 734 N.E.2d 365 (2000), citing
State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 584, 651 N.E.2d 995 (1995).
       {¶27} “All provisions of the Revised Code bearing upon the same subject matter
should be construed harmoniously. This court in the interpretation of related and co-
existing statutes must harmonize and give full application to all such statutes unless they
are irreconcilable and in hopeless conflict.” West v. Bode, 2019-Ohio-4092, 145 N.E.3d
1190, ¶ 45 (7th Dist.), aff'd, 162 Ohio St.3d 293, 2020-Ohio-5473, 165 N.E.3d 298,
quoting State v. Cook, 128 Ohio St.3d 120, 2010-Ohio-6305, 942 N.E.2d 357.
       {¶28} “Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the
rules of grammar and common usage. Words and phrases that have acquired a technical
or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed
accordingly.” R.C. 1.42.
       {¶29} “‘Common words appearing in a written instrument will be given their
ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity results, or unless some other meaning is

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                        –9–

clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the instrument.’ Alexander v.
Buckeye Pipe Line Co. (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 7 O.O.3d 403, 374 N.E.2d 146,
paragraph two of the syllabus.” King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208, 212, 519
N.E.2d 1380 (1988). “In enacting a statute, it is presumed * * * [t]he entire statute is
intended to be effective[, and a] just and reasonable result is intended * * *.” R.C. 1.47(B)
and (C).
       {¶30} Here, Appellant was evidently charged one dollar for each page for the
clerk’s function of making the complete record under R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) because of its
reference to R.C. 2303.20(H), the mandatory fee section. While it is correct that R.C.
2303.20(H) authorizes a per page fee of one dollar, a plain reading of R.C. 2303.201(B)(1)
shows it authorizes a fee of one dollar for each of the services performed. Instead of
listing those services that may result in an additional one dollar fee under (B)(1), the
section refers to the services previously listed in the mandatory fee section. As stated,
the mandatory fee section does authorize the per page one dollar fee.
       {¶31} The trial court concluded a clerk of courts can charge a $1.00
computerization and technology fee for every page of the record under R.C.
2303.201(B)(1). We disagree.
       {¶32} A plain reading of R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) conveys that the clerk is authorized
to charge an additional discretionary fee not to exceed twenty dollars upon the filing of a
new cause of action or appeal.       R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) also permits the charging of a
second discretionary “additional fee” “not to exceed one dollar for each of the services”
“described in divisions (B), (C), (D), (F), (H), and (L) of section 2303.20.”
       {¶33} In this context, “service” means “the work performed by one that serves.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/service accessed October 30, 2023.
       {¶34} A plain reading of R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) conveys that the clerk is authorized
to charge an “additional fee,” which is singular, “not to exceed one dollar for each of the
services.” This is the computerization service fee section, and it authorizes an additional
fee on each service. The only service under R.C. 2303.20(H) is the “making complete
record, including indexing.” This is a singular service, and as such, a clerk is authorized
to charge only one additional fee “not to exceed one dollar” for that service. Id.

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                      – 10 –

       {¶35} It belies the plain language of the statute to conclude that the clerk is
allowed to charge a one dollar fee for each page of the record when it is a singular fee
incurred on the service. Regardless of the number of pages in the record, the preparation
of it constitutes one service such that a party should be charged a single one dollar fee.
       {¶36} The one dollar per service fee is separate and distinct from those fees listed
in R.C. 2303.20. The fact that R.C. 2303.20 includes a per page fee does not affect the
plain language of R.C. 2303.201(B)(1), which does not include a per page fee. R.C.
2303.201(B)(1) unambiguously references the “services” in divisions (B), (C), (D), (F),
(H), and (L) of section 2303.20; it does not reference or incorporate the per page fees in
that section.
       {¶37} If a clerk of court were to prepare the record on three separate occasions,
then, the clerk could charge one additional dollar each time it performed the service, for
a total of three, one dollar fees under R.C. 2303.201(B)(1). This would be in addition to
the one dollar per page fee mandated by R.C. 2303.20(H), the permissible six dollar fee
in R.C. 2303.201(A)(1), and the other permissible fee not to exceed $20 authorized by
R.C. 2303.201 (B)(1).
       {¶38} As for the two cases cited by the trial court, we decline to follow them since
neither is controlling. In State v. Hare, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 19 CAA 01 0001, 2019-
Ohio-3047, ¶ 51, the Fifth District Court of Appeals concluded a three dollar per page fee
was permissible when applying R.C. 2303.20(F) and R.C. 2303.201(B)(1).
       {¶39} Hare concluded that R.C. 2303.20(F) dictates a clerk is to charge a two
dollar per page fee for “entering on the journal, indexing, and posting on the docket.” That
amount plus the additional one dollar charge authorized by R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) equaled
a $3.00 per page charge. However, Hare does not recite or analyze the applicable
statutory language. Id.
       {¶40} In State v. Nicholas, 2020-Ohio-3478, 155 N.E.3d 304, ¶ 173-176 (2nd
Dist.), rev'd, 171 Ohio St.3d 278, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745, the Champaign
County Clerk of Court charged a $100 flat fee for several filings. Id. at ¶ 168. The state
did not respond to this argument, except to say the fees were generally permissible. The
court of appeals found the flat fee of $100 was impermissible and reversed.

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
                                                                                     – 11 –

       {¶41} In its analysis, the court of appeals recited the statutory language of each
potentially applicable fee provision in an effort to ascertain the permissible fees in
Nicholas’ case. The court was attempting to explain what Nicholas should have been
charged instead of multiple fees in the amount of $100.
       {¶42} In doing so, the Nicholas Court seemingly conflated R.C. 2303.20(F) and
R.C. 2303.201(B)(1), stating: “the only [subsection listed in R.C. 2303.201(B)(1)] involved
here is R.C. 2303.20(F). Based on this subsection, the clerk would be authorized to
charge an additional dollar ‘for each page, for entering on journal, indexing, and posting
on any docket.’” Id. at ¶ 176. The court did not discuss or analyze the statutory language
or whether R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) authorizes a $1.00 per page fee or per service fee. Id.
       {¶43} Because the Nicholas and Hare decisions are contrary to the plain statutory
language, we decline to follow them.
       {¶44} We conclude that the plain language of R.C. 2303.201(B)(1) authorizes
charging one dollar per each service rendered, not per page.           The statute is not
ambiguous. Thus, upon construing the material allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences in Appellant’s favor, judgment in Appellees’ favor was not
warranted. Appellant’s sole assigned error has merit.
                                           Conclusion
       {¶45} In light of the foregoing, Appellant’s sole assignment of error has merit. We
reverse the trial court’s decision granting Appellees judgment on the pleadings and
remand for further proceedings.

Waite, J., concurs.

Klatt, J., concurs.

Case No. 2023 CA 0035-M
[Cite as Gault v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas Clerk, 2024-Ohio-1530.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error has
merit. It is the final judgment and order of this Court that we reverse the trial court’s
decision granting Appellee judgment on the pleadings. We hereby remand this matter to
the trial court for further proceedings according to law and consistent with this Court’s
Opinion. Costs to be taxed against the Appellees+
        +.
        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB
SEVENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS,
SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE
SEVENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS,
SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT

JUDGE WILLIAM A. KLATT
RETIRED JUDGE OF THE TENTH DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS,
SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT

                                       NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.