JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Daily Reporter
A Preble County appellate court recently affirmed that a man cannot be granted declaratory judgment in an action he filed against the Preble County Board of Commissioners because there is no current controversy between himself and the board.
The 12th District Court of Appeals panel overruled Manfred Schreyer’s claim that he was entitled to declaratory judgment after the board moved a meeting originally scheduled to take place at his business, Taffy’s of Eaton, to its chambers.
Case details show that a public forum was scheduled at Taffy’s on June 11, 2012 so that the Preble County Chamber of Commerce could discuss a potential county development project.
Several people were invited to serve on the panel and three of the county commissioners agreed to do so.
One day prior to the event, two local newspapers ran announcements indicating that the forum would be held at the Preble County Commissioners’ Chambers, rather than at Taffy’s.
The announcements stated that the commissioners should be in session, the forum needed to be recorded and some panelists were concerned that the meeting was taking place in a privately owned business.
The forum was held in the chambers and all three commissioners denied moving the forum.
One of the commissioners, however, later admitted that he had called the newspapers to announce the move.
Three months after the forum, Schreyer, the owner of Taffy’s, filed a complaint against the commissioners in the Preble County Court of Common Pleas.
His complaint asked for a declaration that the commissioners acted illegally by moving the event, that they acted dishonestly by initially denying moving the forum, and that they threatened to retaliate against Taffy’s “when one commissioner stated that whether he attended a forum in the future would depend on where the forum was held.”
He also requested that a written apology be put on the record at a future commissioner’s meeting.
The trial court found there was no real controversy and granted the commissioners’ motion to dismiss.
“Schreyer argues that the trial court erred in finding that a real and present controversy did not exist between Schreyer and the commissioners because the commissioners had already acted by illegally moving a forum from a private business to the commissioners’ chambers and the controversy was not dependent upon some hypothetical future event,” the court wrote per curiam. “We disagree.”
The three-judge appellate panel stated that declaratory judgment should be granted “to dispose of uncertain or disputed obligations quickly and conclusively.”
It explained that such an action should be dismissed if a party fails to state a claim that can be mended.
They further held there must be more than a theoretical possibility that a similar event could happen in the future.
On review, the judges found that any possible controversy had already been resolved because the forum in question was held and completed.
“Consequently, any action by a court regarding this past action would be purely academic,” they stated.
They further held there was no indication that any future forums were planned, meaning Schreyer’s claim was “not ripe.”
“There is no more than a mere theoretical likelihood that such an action would happen again. Accordingly, no justifiable question exists. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the commissioners’ motion to dismiss and dismissing Schreyer’s complaint for declaratory judgment.”
Presiding Judge Robert Hendrickson and judges Stephen Powell and Robin Piper concurred to form the three-judge panel.
The case is cited Schreyer v. Preble Cty. Bd. of Cmmrs., 2013-Ohio-3087.