Lough v. Varsity Bowl, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1968
• Docket Number: No. 68-178,68-178
• Citation: 243 N.E.2d 61,16 Ohio St.2d 153
• Parties: , 45 O.O.2d 483 LOUGH et al., Appellees, v. VARSITY BOWL, INC., et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 153

16 Ohio St.2d 153

243 N.E.2d 61, 45 O.O.2d 483

LOUGH et al., Appellees, v. VARSITY BOWL, INC., et al., Appellants.

No. 68-178.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 31, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

Where the rules of a voluntary association provide for the final settlement of disputes among its members, its action thereunder will not be reviewed by the courts, in the absence of allegations of arbitrariness, fraud, or collusion, even though property rights may be involved.

On March 28, 1964, the appellees participated as a team and tied for first place in a bowling tournament, conducted by the appellants, Varsity Bowl, Inc., and Harry Zavakos, and sanctioned by the American Bowling Congress. The appellees are members of the American Bowling Congress, hereinafter referred to as the A. B. C., which is a voluntary nonprofit membership association.

As permitted by the A. B. C., the tournament rules require that each participant report to tournament officials any previous tournament winnings of $200 or more. Appellant Zavakos found that one of the appellees did not report such winnings, and consequently he disqualified the appellees from the tournament.

The appellees appealed Zavakos' decision to the executive committee of the Clark County Bowling Association, pursuant to the A. B. C. rules of appeal. The committee conducted a hearing on the matter, at which the appellees were represented by counsel and were accorded the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. A transcribed record of this hearing was then sent to the A. B. C., which upheld the decision of Zavakos disqualifying the team.

The appellees then filed the present action in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, seeking to obtain their prize money. That court sustained a motion to dismiss the action, holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the quasi-judicial decision of the A. B. C. because the A. B. C. rules vested exclusive and final jurisdiction over such matters in the A. B. C.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause, finding that the property rights involved in this case distinguish it and bring it outside of the general rule that the quasijudicial decisions of associations will not be reviewed by courts in the absence of graud, arbitrariness, or collusion. 14 Ohio App.2d 175.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Brumbaugh, Corwin & McDonnell and Ronald H. McDonnell, Jr., Dayton, for appellees.

Shaman, Winer, Shulman & Ziegler and Paul Ziegler, Dayton, for appellants.

PAUL W. BROWN, J.

The question of law presented concerns the jurisdictional requirement for judicial review of the decision of a voluntary association involving the property rights of its members, determined under the constitution and rules of the association. As a general rule, courts will not interfere with the quasi-judicial decisions of voluntary associations unless such decisions are alleged and shown to be the result of fraud, arbitrariness, or collusion. State ex rel. Ohio High School Athletic Ass'n. v. Judges of Court of Common Pleas etc., 173 Ohio St. 239, 247, 181 N.E.2d 261; Boblitt v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 73 Ohio App. 339, 56 N.E.2d 348; Hennekes v. Maupin, 119 Ohio App. 9, 192 N.E.2d 204; 6 American Jurisprudence 2d 454, Associations and Clubs, Section 27. None of such criteria for jurisdiction were effectively alleged by the appellees,1 but the Court of Appeals held that the presence of property interests warranted judicial review.

We cannot find any Ohio authority on this point. The Court of Appeals relied upon statements in the encyclopedias, such as the following statement, in 7 C.J.S. Associations § 34, p. 80:

'* * * the proceedings of the association are subject to judicial review where there is fraud, oppression, or bad faith, or property or civil rights are invaded * * *.'

An examination of the cases cited in support of this quotation reveals that few stand for the proposition as stated. These cases, almost without exception, include the criteria which warrant jurisdiction under the general rule, such as arbitrary action in...