State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cnty. Bd. of Revision

1

2023-Ohio-1247

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. BRIAN M. AMES, Relator-Appellant, v. GEAUGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2022-G-0021

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga

April 17, 2023

Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Trial Court No. 2021 M 000305

Brian M. Ames, pro se, (Relator-Appellant).

James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor, and Linda M. Applebaum Assistant Prosecutor, (For Respondent-Appellee).

OPINION

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

{¶1} Relator-appellant, Brian M. Ames ("Mr. Ames") appeals the judgm Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, in which it adopted the magistrate's determined that Mr Ames engaged in frivolous conduct, and awarded attorne respondent-appellee, Geauga County Board of Revision ("the BOR").

{¶2} Mr. Ames asserts two assignments of error, contending that the trial court erred (1) by holding a hearing on frivolous conduct when it lacked statutory authority and jurisdiction to do so, and (2) by finding that he engaged in frivolous conduct.

{¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find as follows:

{¶4} (1) The trial court was not divested of jurisdiction over frivolous conduct proceedings. The trial court's consideration of an award of attorney fees against Mr. Ames was a collateral issue that was not inconsistent with this court's jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the trial court's summary judgment orders in Mr. Ames' separate appeal.

{¶5} (2) Mr. Ames' remaining arguments do not establish reversible error. Mr. Ames did not file objections to the magistrate's decision and has not claimed plain error on appeal.

{¶6} Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas.

Substantive and Procedural History

{¶7} The BOR is a county board of revision established pursuant to R.C. 5715.01(B) that consists of the county treasurer, county auditor, and a member of the board of county commissioners selected by that board. Mr. Ames is a resident of Randolph Township in Portage County.

{¶8} In May 2021, Mr. Ames filed a pro se complaint against the BOR in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the BOR violated R.C. 121.22, i.e., the Open Meetings Act ("the OMA"). According to Mr. Ames, there was no quorum for the BOR's January 13, 2020 meeting because the treasurer, auditor, and commissioner were not present and because deputy treasurers and auditors and the county administrator may not lawfully act as members of the BOR. Mr Ames requested a finding that the BOR violated the OMA, an injunction "enjoining" the BOR to comply with the OMA, a civil forfeiture of $500, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.

{¶9} The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. In its motion, the BOR requested that the trial court determine, pursuant to R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(b), that Mr. Ames engaged in frivolous conduct in bringing his action. That statutory provision provides, "If the court of common pleas does not issue an injunction pursuant to [R.C. 121.22(I)(1)] and the court determines at that time that the bringing of the action was frivolous conduct, as defined in [R.C. 2323.51 (A)], the court shall award to the public body all court costs and reasonable attorney's fees, as determined by the court."

{¶10} The trial court filed a judgment entry granting the BOR's motion for summary judgment. In its entry, the trial court notified Mr. Ames that it intended to hold a hearing to determine whether he engaged in frivolous conduct and whether sanctions were warranted, citing this court's decision in State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 11th Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0036, 2019-Ohio-3237, appeal not accepted, 157 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2019-Ohio-5193, 136 N.E.3d 508.

{¶11} In that case, we acknowledged R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(b) "plainly states that a court must make a frivolousness finding and award costs and reasonable fees simultaneously with its decision to deny an injunction," which "would ostensibly require the trial court to proceed to make a finding of frivolousness and a cost/reasonable-fee determination without a hearing." Id. at ¶ 23. We concluded that "it would be unreasonable and nonsensical to give the 'at that time' clause * * * its plain meaning." Id. at ¶ 30. We held that "[although contrary to the letter of the statute, * * * a trial court may deny injunctive relief and, upon such an order, alert the plaintiff of its intention to hold a hearing on the frivolous conduct issue to preserve his or her right to due process as well as the orderly and coherent administration of justice." Id.

{¶12} The trial court filed a separate entry denying Mr. Ames' motion for summary judgment.

{¶13} On December 29, 2021, Mr. Ames filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's summary judgment orders (case no. 2021-G-0039). Mr. Ames also filed a motion in the trial court to stay further proceedings, contending that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction when he filed his notice of appeal and that further proceedings would prejudice his appeal. The trial court filed an order appointing a magistrate and scheduling a hearing on frivolous conduct and sanctions. It also filed an order denying Mr. Ames' motion to stay proceedings on the basis that Ms. Ames failed to post a supersedeas bond.

{¶14} Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ames filed a motion requesting that the trial court determine its lack of jurisdiction to proceed and vacate its order appointing the magistrate and scheduling a hearing. The trial court filed a judgment entry in which it determined that it had jurisdiction and denied Mr. Ames' motion.

{¶15} In January 2022, the magistrate held a hearing on frivolous conduct and sanctions. The magistrate subsequently filed a decision setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate found that Mr. Ames' conduct was "egregious" and "objectively frivolous" and that the BOR was "adversely affected." It recommended an award of attorney fees to the BOR in the amount of $1,485. Mr. Ames did not file objections to the magistrate's decision.

{¶16} In March 2022, the trial court filed a judgment entry in which it adopted the magistrate's decision, determined that Mr. Ames engaged in frivolous conduct, and awarded attorney fees to the BOR in the amount of $1,485. In April 2022, Mr. Ames filed the instant appeal.

{¶17} In June 2022, we affirmed the trial court's summary judgment orders in case no. 2021-G-0039. See State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2021-G-0039, 2022-Ohio-2281 ("Ames I"). Mr. Ames filed a jurisdictional appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which declined jurisdiction, with one justice dissenting. See State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 167 Ohio St.3d 1526, 2022-Ohio-332, 195 N.E.3d 162 ("Ames II").

{¶18} Mr. Ames asserts two assignments of error:

{¶19} "[1.] The trial court erred by holding a hearing on frivolous conduct pursuant to R.C. 2323.51(B)(1) when it lacked statutory authority and jurisdiction to do so.

{¶20} "[2.] The trial court erred by find[ing] that the bringing of this action constituted frivolous conduct."

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

{¶21} Within his first assignment of error, Mr. Ames contends that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction over frivolous conduct proceedings when he appealed the court's summary judgment orders in case no. 2021-G-0039.

{¶22} Subject matter jurisdiction is a condition precedent to a court's ability to hear the case. Pratts v Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11. If a court acts without jurisdiction, then any proclamation by that court is void. Id. "Because subject-matter jurisdiction goes to the power of the court to adjudicate the merits of a case, it can never be waived and may be challenged at any time." Id. Whether a trial court possesses subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358, 2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351, ¶ 24.

{¶23} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that "[o]nce a case has been appealed, the trial court loses jurisdiction except to take action in aid of the appeal." In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11, 2005-Ohio-3215, 829 N.E.2d 1207, ¶ 9. However, "[t]he trial court retains jurisdiction over issues not inconsistent with the appellate court's jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment appealed from." Id. This includes certain "collateral issues" such as "contempt, appointment of a receiver[,] and injunction." State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 97, 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978).

{¶24} In State ex rel. Hummel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84 2002-Ohio-3605, 771 N.E.2d 853, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that "despite a voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41 (A)(1), a trial court may consider certain collateral issues not related to the merits of the action." Id. at ¶ 23. Hummel involved a motion for sanctions pursuant to Civ.R. 45(E). See id. at ¶ 24-25. The court cited with approval the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990), which held that a trial court retains jurisdiction to determine Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions after the principal suit has been terminated, and the Tenth Appellate District's decision in Grossman v. Mathless & Mathless, C.P.A., 85 Ohio App.3d 525, 620 N.E.2d 160 (10th Dist.1993), which held that the trial court could entertain an R.C. 2323.51 motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct even though the underlying case had been voluntarily dismissed. See Hummel at ¶ 23, ¶ 25. In a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that "[t]rial courts may consider collateral...