State, ex rel. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., v. Griffin

• Decision Date: 22 April 1991
• Docket Number: Nos. 60843,60844 and 61013,s. 60843
• Citation: 62 Ohio App.3d 516,576 N.E.2d 825
• Parties: The STATE, ex rel. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., v. GRIFFIN, Judge.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 516

62 Ohio App.3d 516

576 N.E.2d 825

The STATE, ex rel. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., v. GRIFFIN, Judge.

Nos. 60843, 60844 and 61013.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Decided April 22, 1991.

McDonald, Hopkins, Burke & Haber Co., L.P.A., and Stephen T. Parisi, Cleveland, for relator GCRTA.

Jack G. Day, Cleveland, for relator Russell T. Adrine.

Jerome Emoff, Cleveland, for relator Juan E. Adorno.

Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Louis Paisley, William H. Baughman and Patrick H. Gaughan, Cleveland, for respondent Burt W. Griffin.

McMANAMON, Presiding Judge.

Relators, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, its General Manager and Secretary-Treasurer, its Board of Trustees, individually and collectively (hereinafter "GCRTA"), Russell T. Adrine and Juan E. Adorno, are seeking a writ of mandamus or a writ of procedendo to compel respondent, the Honorable Burt W. Griffin, to render a declaratory judgment in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas case No. 177994. For the following reasons, we grant relators' request.

Adrine has been an employee-general counsel of GCRTA since August 1984. Adorno has been an employee-assistant/associate counsel of GCRTA since April 1982. In 1988-1989, Adrine and Adorno successfully defended against criminal prosecution in State v. Adrine, case No. CR-228949, and State v Adorno, case Nos. CR-226665 and CR-228994, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. Adrine and Adorno submitted claims to GCRTA for lost employment benefits and indemnification for legal expenses resulting from the criminal prosecutions. John T. Corrigan, then Prosecuting Attorney for Cuyahoga County, wrote to GCRTA as follows:

"Pursuant to Section 309.12 of the Ohio Revised Code, it is the duty of this office to protect public funds and to recover misapplied or illegally drawn funds, when necessary.

"It has come to my attention that the board members of the Regional Transit Authority are considering, have considered, or may even have already authorized, the payment of public monies for the defense of RTA employees presently under indictment, or under investigation.

"The Regional Transit Authority is a creature of statute, and as such, its powers and duties are strictly defined and limited by statute. Payment of attorney fees on behalf of employees accused of criminal violations beyond the scope of their official duties, is not among the powers and duties set forth in the statute governing the board's actions, and is improper. An expenditure of public monies for such a purpose is an improper expenditure and will be investigated and treated accordingly. Board approval of a misapplication of public funds can result in personal liability to the individual board members approving said expenditure.

"Finally, you are advised that in addition to recovery of those funds there are other legal ramifications and consequences which can result from the unlawful expenditure of public funds.

"Therefore, you are hereby notified that this office will take immediate action to protect and/or recover public monies improperly authorized to be expended by the board of the Regional Transit Authority."

GCRTA filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, case No. 177994, seeking a determination by the court of whether GCRTA had the authority under R.C. 306.30 through 306.53, R.C. 1701.13(E) and/or its bylaws to provide indemnification to its employees under these circumstances. On October 25, 1990, following a hearing and without deciding the issue presented, respondent ordered GCRTA to decide whether its bylaws authorized indemnification or he would dismiss the complaint for declaratory relief on February 4, 1991. Relators then brought this action, and this court stayed the declaratory proceedings below pending resolution of this case.

A writ of mandamus is available when (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the relief requested, (2) the respondent has a clear legal duty to perform the requested action, and (3) the relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O.3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus. All three elements are satisfied in this case.

Relators have a clear legal right to obtain a declaratory judgment. R.C. 2721.03 provides in part that "[a]ny person * * * whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a * * * statute * * * may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under such * * * statute * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder." Adrine and Adorno sought indemnification for legal fees from their employer. The county prosecutor informed GCRTA that such expenditures were illegal and threatened that personal liability of the board members and other "consequences" could result if the expenditures were approved. GCRTA asked respondent to construe R.C. 306.30 through 306.53, its bylaws, and R.C. 1701.13(E) and declare whether GCRTA has the authority to consider the indemnification claims of Adrine and Adorno in light of the county prosecutor's written threat of prosecution. Certainly the issue of whether GCRTA could provide...