A Warren County crime victim who was mistakenly overpaid restitution funds and later suffered financial harm when the payments were stopped will not get his day in court against the Clerk of Courts. The Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio affirmed a lower court’s decision, concluding that the Clerk’s actions—issuing the checks and later ordering stop-payments—were protected by broad political subdivision immunity.
The case centers on Trent Haery, one of several victims in two financial crime prosecutions. Following a court order for the distribution of $300,000 in partial restitution, Haery was entitled to receive $15,075.38. However, the Warren County Clerk of Courts, James L. Spaeth, issued two checks to Haery totaling an erroneous $40,000.
The Mistake and the Stop Payment
According to court records, the Clerk’s office issued incorrect restitution amounts to multiple victims, meaning some got too much, and others too little.
After receiving the oversized checks, Haery contacted the Clerk’s office, which reportedly confirmed the $40,000 payment was correct. Relying on this confirmation, Haery deposited the funds and began spending the money.
Unbeknownst to Haery, the Clerk’s office soon realized the error. On December 4, 2023, the Clerk issued stop-payment orders on the checks issued to Haery. Two days later, the Clerk notified Haery of the mistake via email. By that point, Haery alleged his bank account plunged from a positive balance of $22,000 to a negative balance of $18,000 due to the stop payment. Ultimately, the Clerk paid Haery the correct amount owed, $9,436.36 less than what he had mistakenly received.
Haery sued the Clerk in January 2024, claiming wrongful dishonor of the negotiable instrument, disparate treatment, intentional injury, entitlement to specific performance for the full face amount of the checks, and credit damage. He sought over $25,000 in damages.
The Immunity Defense Prevails
The Clerk moved to dismiss the case under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6), arguing two main points: first, that Haery’s five claims were not recognized under Ohio law, and second, that the Clerk was entitled to absolute judicial or quasi-judicial immunity because issuing court-ordered restitution is a judicial function.
The trial court agreed with the Clerk, ruling that the payment of restitution was a quasi-judicial function, granting the Clerk immunity.
On appeal, Haery argued that issuing a check is a purely ministerial act, not protected by immunity, and that his claims were based on statutory violations under the Uniform Commercial Code (R.C. Chapter 1303), not just tort claims.
The appellate court first addressed the question of immunity, which involved two potential sources: common law judicial immunity and statutory political subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
The court noted that the parties and the trial court focused primarily on common law judicial/quasi-judicial immunity. However, the appellate court proactively inquired about the applicability of R.C. Chapter 2744, the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, which generally shields counties and their employees from liability unless specific exceptions apply.
Waiver Argument Rejected
Haery contended the Clerk waived the Chapter 2744 defense by failing to explicitly raise it in the initial motion to dismiss. The appellate court disagreed, citing a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision. The court found that by arguing generally for “absolute quasi-judicial immunity” and citing cases that discussed Chapter 2744, the Clerk had raised the statutory immunity defense in a “clear, affirmative manner,” thus avoiding waiver.
Quasi-Judicial Function Under Statute
Turning to the merits of Chapter 2744 immunity, the appellate court applied the three-tiered analysis required by the statute.
The court determined that the Clerk’s actions—processing a restitution order issued by the Common Pleas Court—fell squarely under the definition of a “governmental function,” specifically a “quasi-judicial function” as defined in R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(f). This classification includes acts “so integral or intertwined with the judicial process” that the actor is considered an arm of the court.
Because the Clerk’s acts were deemed governmental and quasi-judicial, the court found that the exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B)—which only apply to the negligent performance of *proprietary* functions—were inapplicable.
The court rejected Haery’s argument that issuing a check is a simple ministerial act, noting that under R.C. Chapter 2744, there is no provision for liability for governmental *ministerial* acts, a distinction that mattered under older, pre-1985 common law.
“The Clerk’s issuance of restitution checks to Haery, even in incorrect amounts, was a ‘quasi-judicial’ governmental function,” the opinion stated. This applied equally to the stop-payment orders, as they were intended to enforce the court’s original order.
Claims Not Statutory Enough
Finally, the court addressed Haery’s argument that his claims were statutory, based on the Uniform Commercial Code, and thus immune from tort immunity defenses. The appellate court reviewed Haery’s original complaint and found that it did not cite or reference Chapter 1303. Instead, the claims were framed as intentional or negligent torts against the Clerk. Therefore, the court upheld the trial court’s finding that the complaint failed to state cognizable causes of action based on the statutory theory Haery later advanced.
While expressing sympathy for Haery’s financial predicament, the court concluded that, as written, Ohio law grants the Clerk immunity for these actions.