Carlin v. Reminderville

2025-Ohio-1435 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth District · April 23, 2025 · No. 31022

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals decision affirms the Summit County Court of Common Pleas' dismissal of William Carlin's complaint against the Village of Reminderville regarding unpaid OPERS contributions and a requested certification of unreported public service. The court held that the trial court properly adopted the magistrate's finding that Carlin was not a public employee during the disputed years and that his request to OPERS was untimely under Revised Code 145.037. Reviewing the record de novo, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the lower court's rulings. A dissenting opinion argues that the trial court improperly assumed jurisdiction over a matter reserved for the OPERS board.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth District
Writing for the Court
Jennifer Hensal; Sutton, P.J.; Flagg Lanzinger, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
April 23, 2025
Docket number
31022
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas' adoption of a magistrate's decision granting the Village's motion for a directed verdict and dismissing Carlin's complaint.
Standard of review
The appellate court reviews a trial court's action on a magistrate's decision for abuse of discretion, with reference to the nature of the underlying matter. Because a directed verdict tests the sufficiency of the evidence, the ruling on the directed-verdict motion is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
William A. Carlin v. Village of Reminderville, et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

employment lawstatutory interpretationappellate procedurecivil procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Employment lawPublic employee retirement benefitsCivil procedureAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate's finding that Carlin was not a Village public employee from 1985 through the first quarter of 1988.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate's finding that Carlin did not timely request an OPERS determination of his public-employee status under R.C. 145.037.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not err by addressing whether Carlin was a Village employee from 1985 through the first quarter of 1988 because Carlin's complaint required him to establish that status, he acknowledged at trial that it was the preliminary issue, and he requested in his objections that the court find he was an employee during those years.
  2. Carlin failed to establish that the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate's finding that he was not a Village employee from 1985 through the first quarter of 1988.
  3. Carlin failed to establish that the trial court erred in finding that he did not timely request an OPERS determination of whether he should have been classified as a public employee.

Key quotations

A motion for a directed verdict assesses the sufficiency of the evidence, not the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. (¶ 7)

Factual background

The Village appointed the law firm of Carlin and Carlin as its solicitor and prosecutor in 1985, and Carlin alleged that he represented the Village until 1997. The Village began making OPERS contributions for Carlin in April 1988, and a 1988 document submitted to OPERS stated that he began service on April 1, 1988. After learning in 2020 that he lacked sufficient OPERS service credit for supplemental health insurance, Carlin sought to have the Village certify unreported service for the earlier years, but the Village refused.

Procedural history

Carlin sued the Village of Reminderville seeking an order compelling it to provide OPERS with a certification of unreported service and to make required retirement contributions for 1985 through the first quarter of 1988. After Carlin presented his case at trial, the magistrate granted the Village's motion for a directed verdict, concluding that Carlin had not established public-employee status and alternatively that his request for an OPERS determination was untimely. The trial court overruled Carlin's objections, adopted the magistrate's decision, and dismissed the complaint. The Ninth District affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…