Ohio Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Attorney Fees in Oversight Issue
Ohio Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Attorney Fees in Oversight Issue
On February 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of mandatory attorney’s fees for appellant Emilie DiFranco, whose request for public records went unfulfilled for almost six months, due to a “communications breakdown” between city of South Euclid officials. DiFranco filed a claim for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals, which brought the matter before city officials once again, and they immediately produced the records. Though the city’s production of the requested materials made the mandamus action moot, DiFranco filed for mandatory attorney’s fees. The city filed for summary judgement and the court of appeals granted the city’s motion, holding that DiFranco failed to prove any public benefit in permitting attorney fees. DiFranco appealed the decision.
The Supreme Court looked at the controlling state statute, R.C. 149.43, and reviewed the case de novo. The Court noted that the court of appeals misapplied the statutory language and failed to “engag[e] in the analysis required by R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b). The Supreme Court applied the amended language and affirmed the denial of mandatory fees, but on different grounds.
The 2007 amendment provides specific criteria for awarding mandatory fees, namely a judgment. Because the mandamus was moot, there was no judgment. Because there was no judgment, no fees should be awarded.
In a dissent opinion, Justice Kennedy disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of an ‘if’ clause at the beginning of the statute, R.C. 149.43 (C)(2)(b), and believed that DiFranco was entitled to attorney fees. While the majority felt that their interpretation was consistent with legislative intent, encouraging people requesting public records to ‘remind’ the government entity “without burdening the public purse,” the dissent disagreed, noting that it was the city’s misconduct that delayed the production of records, ultimately forcing DiFranco to initiate litigation, and that DiFranco should be made whole and reimbursed. See: State ex rel DiFranco v. S. Euclid, 138 Ohio St.3d 378, 2014-Ohio-539.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State ex rel DiFranco v. S. Euclid
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 138 Ohio St.3d 378, 2014-Ohio-539 |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |