State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 77-1114

• Citation: 377 N.E.2d 780,54 Ohio St.2d 461
• Decision Date: 28 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-1114,77-1114
• Parties: , 8 O.O.3d 450 The STATE ex rel. VENTRONE et al., Appellees, v. BIRKEL, Dir., et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 461

54 Ohio St.2d 461

377 N.E.2d 780, 8 O.O.3d 450

The STATE ex rel. VENTRONE et al., Appellees, v. BIRKEL, Dir., et al., Appellants.

No. 77-1114.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 28, 1978.

On March 1, 1977, appellees, relators below, filed an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Summit County. This action was filed, and certified by the Court of Appeals, as a class action, pursuant to Civ.R. 23(C), ^* the class being those residents of Summit County eligible to receive poor-relief payments. The basis for the class action in mandamus consisted of appellees' claim that appellants, respondents below, including the members of the Board of Summit County Commissioners and the Director of the Summit County Welfare Department, failed to comply with their statutorily-imposed mandate, under R.C. 5113.03, to provide appellees with poor relief in an amount "sufficient to maintain health and decency."

Prior to the filing of this action, appellant Board of Summit County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 1708-76, effective January 1, 1977, which established a schedule of relief payments with a minimum general relief grant of $43 a month for a single person living alone.

A motion to dismiss filed by appellants was denied by the appellate court on June 7, 1977. On August 31, 1977, the Court of Appeals, in a journal entry, granted appellees' requested writ of mandamus, holding that the appellants had a statutory duty to provide eligible residents with poor relief in an amount sufficient "to maintain (their) health and decency" and that the amounts set forth in Resolution No. 1708-76 failed to adequately satisfy that requirement.

This cause is now before this court upon appeal as of right.

Anthony Touschner, Akron, for appellees.

Stephan M. Gabalac, Pros. Atty., and Mary Ann Kovach, Akron, for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The only question on appeal is whether the appellants have a statutory duty to establish standards of poor-relief payments "sufficient to maintain health and decency," with which failure to comply constitutes a valid basis for an action in mandamus. We hold that such a duty exists and that appellants have failed to comply with said duty.

The authority to administer a poor relief program and duty to furnish such relief to eligible persons has been imposed upon the welfare departments of the various counties, under R.C. 5113.02, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

"In each county the county department of welfare shall exercise the powers and duties assigned to the local relief authority or the local relief director under Chapter 5113 of the Revised Code and shall furnish poor relief to all persons who are eligible for such relief under this chapter." (Emphasis added.)

Under R.C. 5113.03, this duty which has been placed upon the county department of welfare to provide poor relief has been supplemented by the additional requirement that such poor relief "shall be sufficient to maintain health and decency, taking into account the requirements and the income and resources of the recipient." Therefore, it must syllogistically follow that in order to satisfy this requirement, it is imperative that appellants establish the requisite standards of payment, which they have failed to do.

We cannot agree with appellants' contention that R.C. 5113.09(D) places the duty to establish minimum standards...