Kirby v. Oatts

Citations

• 151 N.E.3d 1083
• 2020 Ohio 301

Syllabus

The trial court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction over appellant-board's declaratory judgment, replevin and conversion claims because the relief sought may only be determined through a quo warranto action under R.C. 2733.05 and R.C. 2733.06. Standing in quo warranto actions is given exclusively to the attorney general, county prosecuting attorneys, and persons claiming entitlement to public office. Since the board had no standing to bring a quo warranto action, the trial court erred when it stayed its claim for injunctive relief and damages under R.C. 5312.13 on the basis of judicial economy. The trial court's stay did not promote judicial economy, but hindered it, as it likely halted the claim indefinitely. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the board's declaratory judgment, replevin, and conversion claims is affirmed. The trial court's order staying the board's claim for an injunction and damages under R.C. 5312.13 is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on that claim.