The Third Appellate District of Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s decision in a case involving Douglas A. Pelmear and the Henry County Land Reutilization Corporation (Land Bank). Pelmear, acting as the relator-appellant, had claimed the Land Bank violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (OMA). The court found that Pelmear failed to prove his claims, upholding the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Land Bank and other respondents.
Background of the Case
The core of the dispute revolves around a property in Henry County that was subject to a foreclosure action. Pelmear asserted a financial lien on the property, which he claimed the Land Bank and the Henry County Prosecutor’s Office prevented him from enforcing. According to Pelmear, the Land Bank’s acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure for the property on January 5, 2022, was an invalid act because it was not authorized by any public resolution or meeting record, thus violating Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (“OMA”).
Pelmear filed a complaint in the trial court on January 4, 2024, seeking an injunction against the Land Bank. The complaint alleged the Land Bank had violated the OMA by failing to provide proper public notice for twelve meetings held in 2022 and 2023. He sought to invalidate any actions taken at those meetings, along with statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs.
Procedural Hurdles and Delays
The case faced several delays due to Pelmear’s related filings in the Supreme Court of Ohio. Initially, Pelmear sought to disqualify the Henry County Prosecutor’s Office from representing the Respondents. This led the trial court to halt discovery responses until the Supreme Court ruled. Pelmear also filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, and scheduled depositions for several individuals. The trial court subsequently stayed the case.
The Supreme Court eventually denied Pelmear’s motion to disqualify the trial judge and dismissed his motion to disqualify the prosecutor’s office. After these rulings, Pelmear moved to compel discovery and impose sanctions on the Respondents, arguing they had failed to provide required initial disclosures and attend depositions. The trial court denied this motion, citing the prior delays and establishing new discovery deadlines.
Trial and Ruling
The Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, which Pelmear attempted to counter with a motion to strike or, in the alternative, a memorandum in opposition and a request for sanctions. He also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court denied all of Pelmear’s motions.
Pelmear then filed a motion in limine to prevent the Land Bank representatives from testifying at trial. The court denied this motion as well. At trial, the court ultimately entered judgment in favor of the Respondents. The court found that Pelmear failed to prove a violation of the OMA’s public notice requirements, finding that Pelmear had not presented enough evidence that meetings occurred on 3 of the 12 dates he alleged. For the remaining 9 meetings, the court relied on the Land Bank’s code of regulations to conclude that a reasonable notice policy was in place and Pelmear failed to prove it was not followed.
Appellate Court’s Analysis: First Assignment of Error
Pelmear’s first assignment of error argued that the trial court improperly allowed the Respondents to introduce evidence not disclosed during discovery. He claimed this created undue surprise and prejudiced his case. The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard, meaning the lower court’s ruling would only be overturned if it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It pointed out that Pelmear had never formally requested the documents under Civil Rule 34, which is the proper procedure for obtaining documents from a party. The court noted that an informal email request, which Pelmear claimed to have sent, does not fulfill the requirements of the rules. Since Pelmear failed to use the correct procedures, the trial court was justified in allowing the exhibits.
Appellate Court’s Analysis: Second and Third Assignments of Error
Pelmear’s second and third assignments of error focused on the trial court’s failure to issue an injunction. He argued that he presented overwhelming evidence of OMA violations, mandating an injunction under Ohio law. The appellate court, again, used the abuse of discretion standard.
The appellate court reiterated the OMA’s purpose of ensuring government transparency. It explained that the OMA requires public bodies to conduct business in open meetings and provides specific remedies for violations, including an injunction. The court noted, however, that the party alleging an OMA violation bears the burden of proof.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that Pelmear did not meet this burden. It found that Pelmear failed to show that the Land Bank’s gatherings were not regular meetings, as required by its own rules. The court determined that Section 4.3 of the Land Bank’s Code of Regulations does not require the adoption of a full yearly schedule.
Further, the appellate court found that Pelmear’s claims were largely based on allegations. The court emphasized that Pelmear needed to provide actual evidence of an OMA violation, not just point to a gap in the record. The court pointed out that the trial court heard testimony from a Land Bank board member, Robert Hastedt, who refuted Pelmear’s claims.
Since Pelmear failed to provide evidence of an OMA violation, the appellate court concluded the trial court did not err by denying the requested injunctive relief.