State v. Zelman, Unpublished Decision (5-22-2003)
State v. Zelman, Unpublished Decision (5-22-2003)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} MDCA is a non-profit organization that receives both state and federal funds which are used to operate a Head Start Program that provides educational day care services for children of low income families. In addition, MDCA operates a Child and Adult Care Food Program which provides food and nutrition services to low income families. Zelman, through the Ohio Department of Education ("ODE"), manages, administers, and monitors the operation of the Head Start Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Program ("the programs") as operated by MDCA. Based upon the complaint for a writ of mandamus, MDCA argues that Zelman, through the ODE, has improperly refused to transfer outstanding grant funds totaling approximately $11 million for the programs in 2002. In addition, MDCA seeks the transfer of over $8 million in Head Start Program funds for the fiscal year 2003. MDCA argues it possesses a legal right to the aforesaid funds and that Zelman possesses a legal duty to transfer the funds to MDCA. Finally, MDCA seeks a declaration from this court that it is both a valid Head Start Program and Child and Adult Care Food Program provider.
{¶ 3} In order for this court to grant a writ a mandamus, MDCA must meet the following three-part test: (1) MDCA possesses a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) Zelman possesses a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief, and (3) MDCA possesses no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes
(1978),
{¶ 4} In the case sub judice, MDCA has failed to demonstrate that it possesses a clear legal right which requires Zelman to distribute the requested sums. MDCA's complaint for a writ of mandamus with attached exhibits, as well as Zelman's motion to dismiss with attached exhibits, and the brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss as filed by MDCA, can demonstrate only that MDCA was a participant in the programs and subject to the various requirements of Section 44.02 of Am.Sub. H.B. 299 (124th G.A. 2001) and the "Permanent Agreement" that was executed between the parties on or about November 4, 1996. (See Exhibit "A" as attached to the complaint for a writ of mandamus). MDCA has failed to clearly demonstrate that it has complied with all requirements under Section 44.02 of Am.Sub. H.B. 299 (124th G.A. 2001) and the "Permanent Agreement" which would create a duty on the part of Zelman to distribute the requested funds. In fact, in State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care v. Jim Petro,Auditor of State (Apr. 29, 2003), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 81762 and 81895, this court refused to issue a writ of mandamus to vacate a finding by the Auditor of the State of Ohio that MDCA must return funds in excess of $4 million as a result of "* * * funds paid for more children than MDCA could document as having been in the program; funds paid to MDCA in excess of the amount paid to private providers; and funds for computer equipment and furniture."
{¶ 5} Notwithstanding the fact that MDCA has failed to demonstrate that it possesses a clear legal right to the requested funds or that Zelman possesses a clear legal duty to distribute the requested funds, we find that the petition for a writ of mandamus fails on its face. The power of this court to hear an original action is derived from Section
{¶ 6} Any action which seeks a declaratory judgment is governed by R.C.
{¶ 7} Finally, we find that MDCA has failed to fulfill the last prong of the three-part test which applies to mandamus actions. MDCA, through its complaint for a writ of mandamus, is specifically seeking the payment of monetary funds from the ODE, a state entity. The Court of Claims possesses original jurisdiction over all claims brought against the State of Ohio as permitted by the waiver of sovereign immunity. See R.C.
{¶ 8} Accordingly, we grant Zelman's motion to dismiss MDCA's complaint for a writ of mandamus. Costs to MDCA. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).
Complaint dismissed.
ANNE L. KILBANE, P.J. concurs.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. concurs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.