1
2024-Ohio-1852
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. BRIAN M. AMES, Relator-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee,
v.
PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Respondent-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.
No. 2023-P-0082
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage
May 13, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Trial Court No. 2019 CV 00878
Brian M. Ames, pro se, (Relator-Appellant/Cross-Appellee).
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Christopher J. Meduri, Assistant Prosecutor, (For Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant).
OPINION
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Relator-appellant/cross-appellee, Brian M. Ames ("Mr. Ames"), appeals the January 27, 2022, judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for summary judgment on his 39-count complaint against respondent-appellee/cross-appellant, Portage County Board of Commissioners ("the board"), and the
court's October 10, 2023, judgment finding in favor of the board on 19 counts following a bench trial.
{¶2} The board cross-appeals from the trial court's October 2023 judgment finding in favor of Mr. Ames on 20 counts.
{¶3} Mr. Ames asserts four assignments of error, contending the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment and by granting partial judgment to the board after trial. The board raises two cross-assignments of error, contending the trial court erred by granting partial judgment to Mr. Ames after trial.
{¶4} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find as follows:
{¶5} (1) Any error in the trial court's denial of Mr. Ames' motion for summary judgment was rendered moot or harmless. Mr. Ames did not face an adverse judgment on 20 of his claims, and the trial court did not deny his motion based on a "pure question of law."
{¶6} (2) The trial court did not err by granting judgment to the board on Mr. Ames' claim alleging that the board failed to establish proper notice rules under R.C. 121.22(F). Mr. Ames presented no evidence at trial showing the unreasonableness of the board's rules.
{¶7} (3) The trial court did not err by granting judgment to the board on count 31 of Mr. Ames' complaint alleging that the board's motion to hold executive session failed to state a permitted purpose under R.C. 121.22(G)(1). Mr. Ames presented no evidence at trial showing that the board did not discuss all the topics stated in its motion, and the board was not legally required to discuss every topic.
{¶8} (4) The trial court did not err by granting judgment to Mr. Ames on his 20 additional claims under R.C. 121.22(G)(1). It is undisputed that the board's motions expressly included reasons for holding executive sessions that are not statutorily permitted.
{¶9} (5) The trial court did not err by granting judgment to the board on Mr. Ames' claims alleging the board failed to keep full and accurate meeting minutes. The fact that the board's motions to hold executive sessions included impermissible reasons did not render the minutes inaccurate.
{¶10} Thus, Mr. Ames' assignments of error and the board's cross-assignments of error are without merit, and we affirm the judgments of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶11} The board is a board of county commissioners established under R.C. 305.01. Mr. Ames is a resident of Randolph Township in Portage County.
{¶12} In November 2019, Mr. Ames, pro se, filed a 39-count "verified complaint in declaratory judgment, injunction, and mandamus" in the trial court alleging that the board committed several violations of R.C. 121.22, the Open Meetings Act ("the OMA"), during several meetings the board held in 2018 and 2019. Mr. Ames' claims are summarized as follows:
• In count 1, Mr. Ames alleged the board violated R.C 121.22(F) by failing to establish, by rule, a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings ("the notice rule claim")
• In 21 counts (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 38), Mr. Ames alleged the board violated R.C. 121.22(A) and (G) by holding executive sessions for purposes that are not permitted under R.C. 121.22(G)(1) ("the executive sessions claims").
• In 17 counts (counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, and 39), Mr. Ames alleged the board violated R.C. 121.22 by failing to keep full and accurate meeting minutes ("the meeting minutes claims").
{¶13} Mr. Ames requested findings that the board committed 39 violations of R.C. 121.22; an injunction for each violation "enjoining" the board to comply with R.C. 121.22; a civil forfeiture of $500 for each injunction issued; a declaration that all formal actions resulting from the allegedly improper executive sessions are invalid; an order requiring the board to establish a rule pursuant to R.C. 121.22(F); an order requiring the board to correct its meeting minutes; and an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
{¶14} The board filed an answer admitting some factual assertions but denied that its actions violated R.C. 121.22. Following discovery, Mr. Ames moved for summary judgment on all counts, which the board opposed.[1] On January 27, 2022, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying Mr. Ames' motion for summary judgment. Mr. Ames appealed, which this court dismissed sua sponte for lack of a final appealable order in State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022-P-0013, 2022-Ohio-1141.
{¶15} The trial court set the matter for a bench trial and filed several pretrial orders, including an order deeming several allegations in Mr. Ames' complaint admitted by the board and prohibiting the board from disputing them. Both parties filed trial briefs.
{¶16} The matter was tried to the bench on October 5, 2023. The trial court separated the 39 counts into three groups for purposes of disposition: (1) the notice rule claim; (2) the executive sessions claims, and (3) the meeting minutes claims. For the notice rule claim, the parties submitted joint exhibit 1, consisting of the board's notice rules for 2018 and 2019. For the executive session and meeting minutes claims, Mr. Ames relied solely on the board's admissions in its answer and pursuant to the trial court's pretrial order. Neither party presented any other exhibits or witness testimony.
{¶17} On October 10, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment entry granting partial judgment to both parties. Specifically, the trial court granted judgment to the board on the notice rule claim, one executive sessions claim (count 31), and the 17 meeting minutes claims. The trial court granted judgment to Mr. Ames on his 20 additional executive sessions claims. The trial court issued an injunction against the board and ordered it to pay a $500 civil forfeiture.
{¶18} Mr. Ames appealed and raises four assignments of error:
{¶19} "[1.] The trial court committed reversible error by denying Mr. Ames' Motion for Summary Judgment.
{¶20} "[2.] The trial court committed reversible error and an abuse of discretion by denying Mr. Ames' Judgment as to Count 1 of the Complaint.
{¶21} "[3.] The trial court committed reversible error and an abuse of discretion by denying Mr. Ames' Judgment as to Count 31 of the Complaint.
{¶22} "[4.] The trial court committed reversible error and an abuse of discretion by denying Mr. Ames' Judgment as to Counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, and 39 of the Complaint."
{¶23} The board cross-appealed and raises two cross-assignments of error:
{¶24} "[1.] The common pleas court erred as a matter of law in holding the board violated the Open Meetings Act.
{¶25} "[2.] The trial court abused its discretion in concluding executive sessions were improperly held when the motions stated a matter permissible under R.C. 121.22(G)(1) and the matters considered during the executive sessions were permissible under R.C. 121[.]22(G)(1) and there was no allegation nor evidence otherwise."
Summary Judgment
{¶26} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Ames contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment.
{¶27} We review summary judgment decisions de novo. Hedrick v. Szep, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2020-G-0272, 2021-Ohio-1851, ¶ 13. Summary judgment is appropriate only when (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated, (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, and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Civ.R. 56(C).
{¶28} The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that "appellate courts may review a trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment after an adverse final judgment
has been rendered in a case * * * While any error in the denial of a motion for summary judgment will often be rendered moot or harmless when the trial proceedings show that there were genuine issues of material fact supporting a judgment in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment was made, * * * the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not harmless when the denial was predicated on a pure question of law, see Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington, 71 Ohio St.3d 150, 158, 642 N.E.2d 615 (1994)." Bliss v. Johns Manville, 172 Ohio St.3d 367, 2022-Ohio-4366, 224 N.E.3d 22, ¶ 14.
{¶29} Here, the trial court rendered favorable judgments to Mr. Ames on all but one of his executive sessions claims. Therefore, he was not subject to an "adverse" judgment on those 20 claims. In addition, the trial court's denial of Mr. Ames' motion for summary judgment was not predicated on a "pure question of law." In its entry, the trial court determined that Mr....
