The Ohio Supreme Court in a recent ruling ended a Sylvania Township trustee’s effort to compel the local probate judge to appoint a new trustee to the board to replace a previously appointed trustee.

Sylvania Township Trustee John Jennewine filed a complaint Aug. 30, 2024, seeking writs of quo warranto, procedendo and mandamus to contest the appointment of then-at-large Sylvania Board of Education member Jill Johnson to a vacant township trustee position on the board.

Jennewine has alleged that Johnson’s appointment by a committee of five was not made in accordance with R.C. 503.24.

“Because no township trustee vacancy exists to which an appointment could be made under R.C. 503.24, Jennewine has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief he seeks or a clear legal duty on the part of (Lucas County Probate) Judge (Jack) Puffenberger to provide that relief,” justices wrote per curiam. “Accordingly, his mandamus claim fails, and we deny the writ.”

A member of the three-member Sylvania Board of Trustees resigned July 1, 224, creating the vacancy, case summary provided.

According to R.C. 503.24, Jennewine and the other remaining township trustee had 30 days from the resignation to fill the vacant post by appointing a replacement.

The two remaining trustees, however, failed to do so.

According to the statute, if no appointment is made by the deadline, a majority of the persons designated as “the committee of five” on the last-filed nominating petition of the resigning trustee shall make an appointment within a prescribed 10-day period.

In the event at least three members cannot be found or the committee of five fails to make an appointment, the presiding county probate judge shall appoint a township elector to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term or until a successor is elected, the law prescribed.

One member of the committee of five had died since the last nominating petition had been filed, summary provided.

Of the four remaining members, one member stopped participating in committee business after several meetings had taken place and a replacement was not appointed.

The three remaining committee members attended an Aug. 8 meeting at which two members verbally voted to appoint Johnson as a township trustee, while the third member abstained from the vote.

On Aug. 13, the two voting members signed Resolution 24-001, formalizing Johnson’s appointment to the vacant trustee position.

Johnson took the oath of office as a Sylvania Township trustee on Aug. 19 and has since participated in trustee meetings to the same extent as the elected trustees.

Jennewine filed his Aug. 30 complaint after the county prosecutor declined to initiate a quo warranto action to try to remove Johnson from the appointed position.

Jennewine named Puffenberger and Johnson as respondents.

Both Puffenberger and Johnson filed motions to dismiss, and the Supreme Court dismissed all claims against her and dismissed her as a party to the case. The high court also dismissed the procedendo and quo warranto claims against Puffenberger.

“Jennewine argues that the committee of five failed to comply with R.C. 503.24 when it appointed Johnson to the board of township trustees and, therefore, Judge Puffenberger is required to appoint someone to the position that Johnson now holds,” the court wrote. “But statutory noncompliance by the committee would not automatically invalidate Johnson’s appointment and create a vacancy to be filled.”

The justices noted that a de facto officer may be ousted from a position in a direct proceeding against him, but a de jure officer cannot be.

“The parties agree that Johnson has taken the township trustee oath of office, paid her bond and participated in township trustee board meetings to the same extent as elected trustees,” the court continued. “By all accounts, Johnson is at least a de facto officer. Therefore, the exclusive remedy to litigate her right to hold that office is an action in quo warranto.”

The high court noted that Jennewine filed this action in quo warranto, and that it was dismissed during pleadings.

“Only the attorney general, a county prosecutor or a person making a good-faith claim that he is entitled to the office may bring an action in quo warranto to oust Johnson from office. Jennewine is none of these,” the court wrote.

The justices determined Jennewine failed to show that he has a clear legal right to the relief he seeks.

“Further, a township trustee vacancy must exist for Judge Puffenberger to have a clear legal duty to make an appointment under R.C. 503.24,” the court concluded. “Since no such vacancy exists, Judge Puffenberger does not have a clear legal duty to act.”