State ex rel. Hottle v. Board of County Com'rs of Highland County

• Decision Date: 07 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 77-341,77-341
• Citation: 52 Ohio St.2d 117,370 N.E.2d 462
• Parties: , 6 O.O.3d 337 The STATE ex rel. HOTTLE, Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMRS. OF HIGHLAND COUNTY et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 117

52 Ohio St.2d 117

370 N.E.2d 462, 6 O.O.3d 337

The STATE ex rel. HOTTLE, Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMRS. OF HIGHLAND COUNTY et al., Appellants.

No. 77-341.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 7, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

A Court of Common Pleas located in the courthouse is entitled to additional space therein as against other governmental officers where it is shown that the space is reasonably necessary for the court's proper and efficient operation as distinguished from being merely desirable. (State ex rel. Finley v. Pfeiffer, 163 Ohio St. 149, 126 N.E.2d 57, approved and followed.)

Darrell R. Hottle, judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Highland County (appellee), filed an original action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals against the Board of Commissioners of Highland County, its members and the Clerk of Courts of Highland County (appellants). Appellee stated in his complaint that appellants were denying him space in the Highland County Courthouse, which space is necessary and required for the proper operation of the Court of Common Pleas. Further, appellee specified that the denial of needed space occurred notwithstanding his appearance before the appellant board of county commissioners on April 12, 1976, advising them that the vacated office was necessary and required for the proper operation of the Court of Common Pleas. The complaint additionally declared that appellants or their agents padlocked the vacant office; that the office was eventually assigned to the clerk of courts by appellant board of county commissioners; and that appellee, on April 30, 1976, inserted a journal entry declaring the necessity of the space for the proper operation of the court and the administration of justice.

Appellants, in their answers, denied that the space demanded by appellee is necessary and required for the proper operation of the Court of Common Pleas and stated that the office space has been occupied by the automobile title department of the clerk of courts and that the office space is located in the middle of the clerk's office and is necessary for the operation of the office of the clerk of courts.

The Court of Appeals issued the writ, finding that the proper administration of justice in Highland County necessitates and requires the occupancy and use by the Court of Common Pleas of the two rooms utilized by the clerk of courts on the second floor of the courthouse, in order that the entire second floor be made available to the appellee and the Highland County Law Library.

The cause is now before this court on an appeal as a matter of right.

Young & Jones and Fred E. Jones, Lebanon, for appellee.

Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson, Brown & Newman, Rankin M. Gibson and Robert J. Walter, Columbus, for appellants.

LOCHER, Justice.

Appellants, in their first two propositions of law, contend that the issuance of the writ by the Court of Appeals was in error. This contention is premised upon the assertions of appellants that: (1) Appellee failed to demonstrate that the requested space was reasonably necessary for the operation of the court and (2) appellee did not establish his right to the requested act or that the desired performance is mandatory upon appellants.

Appellants' first two propositions of law are without merit. Although the county commissioners are authorized by statute to provide offices for the county officials and may do this, either in a separate building or in the courthouse, and have control over these offices, whether located in the courthouse or elsewhere, this does not alter the fact that the primary purpose of the courthouse is to provide a permanent seat of justice. State ex rel. Bittikofer v. Babst (1917), 97 Ohio St. 64, 65, 119 N.E. 136.

As early as 1842, this court noted the existence of a legal duty upon the county commissioners to furnish all things coupled with the administration of justice within their county. Commrs. of Trumbull County v. Hutchins (1842), 11 Ohio 369, 371. Further, the statutes mandate that the county commissioners provide a suitable place for the holding of the courts. R.C. 305.22 and 307.01. The landmark case in Ohio, with respect to the instant cause, is Zangerle v. Court of Common Pleas (1943), 141 Ohio St. 70, 46 N.E.2d 865, wherein this court stated that the primary and paramount purpose of the courthouse, as its name implies, is to furnish the rooms and facilities essential for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the courts. The court, in Zangerle, supra, thus held that, where the courts, for the purpose of the administration of justice, assert a claim of necessity for the use and occupation of certain rooms, this right of the courts must prevail for the commissioners have no discretion or authority to deprive the courts of the use of any part of the building provided by the building commission for the administration of justice.

In the adjudication of a similar dispute between the Probate Court of Tuscarawas County and the board of county commissioners, the Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus, finding that the county commissioners were under a legal duty to provide the requested space for the Probate Court by moving the county recorder from his offices adjoining the court, where the need for the additional space was shown. State ex rel. Finley v. Pfeiffer (1956), 102 Ohio App. 136, 141 N.E.2d 470, affirmed 165 Ohio St. 496, 137 N.E.2d 678. Thus, a court of general jurisdiction located in a courthouse has a paramount right to the space therein which is essential to the proper and efficient operation of such court, but the necessity for such space constitutes a question of fact, and a court is entitled to additional space as against other branches of government only where it is shown that such space is reasonably necessary for the court's operation as distinguished from being merely desirable. State ex rel. Finley v. Pfeiffer (1955), 163 Ohio St. 149, 126 N.E.2d 57, paragraph two of...