Login | August 22, 2025
Appeals panel refuses to hear state’s appeal of attorney fees
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 20, 2025
A Franklin County appellate panel determined that state law precludes the Ohio attorney general’s office from appealing a trial court’s award of attorney fees to an individual at the center of an auditor’s investigation of unlawful compensation of more than $195,000.
The three-judge panel of the Tenth District Court of Appeals found that R.C. 2335.39 limits the opportunity to appeal the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in the action––in this case, Casey Goleb, who was hired as an English Language Learners instructor at a Hilliard charter school.
In its case against Goleb, the attorney general’s office was unable to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Goleb should not have been paid $198,746 in compensation and benefits, plus interest.
“The plain language of the statute describes an appeal in two scenarios,” Tenth District Judge Julia Dorrian wrote for the 3-0 panel. “First, a prevailing eligible party can appeal a denied or reduced attorney fee award. Pursuant to R.C. 2335.39(A)(2), an eligible party is a party to an action or appeal involving the state but is not the state itself. … The second appeal scenario in the statue allows a state agency to appeal an order that awards attorney fees against it if the case is an appeal of an agency adjudication order pursuant to R.C. 119.12.”
On Feb. 22, 2021, the state filed a complaint against Goleb and an associate seeking to recover funds based on a finding for recovery in the state auditor’s report for 2014, according to a summary of the case.
The complaint alleged that Goleb was hired as an instructor at Sunrise Academy in the Hilliard City School District.
Compensation and benefits for the relevant period were charged to the school district’s Auxiliary Services Fund, provided by the Ohio Department of Education.
The state’s complaint alleged there was no evidence that Sunrise Academy provided an English Language Learners program or services to its students, and the state sought to recover a judgment against Goleb, summary continued.
At the conclusion of a jury trial that began Jan. 29, 2024, the jury found that the state failed to prove its claims against Goleb, and the court issued judgment in favor of Goleb and against the state.
On Feb. 8, 2024, Goleb moved for attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 2335.39. The state filed a response in opposition, summary provided.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion for attorney fees on April 18, 2024, and subsequently issued a decision granting Goleb’s motion for attorney fees in the amount of $48,362.
The state filed a timely appeal, arguing that the Franklin County Common Pleas Court erred in granting attorney fees, according to R.C. 2335.39.
“In its supplemental brief, the state argues that, notwithstanding the absence of language permitting the state to appeal here, the state has a general right to appeal under R.C. 2505.03 because an order granting attorney fees is a final order,” Dorrian wrote. “The state further argues that the statute simply remedies a possible barrier to appeal by making an appeal available to a prevailing eligible party where one might not have otherwise been available.”
She noted that the judiciary relies on the “canon of statutory construction,” which provides that in instances of an apparent conflict between a specific statutory provision and a more general one, the more specific statute governs.
“Ultimately, the state’s interpretation would require us to read the permissive appeal language in R.C. 2335.39 as superfluous, or mere surplusage,” Dorrian continued. “It remains that the plain language of R.C. 2335.39(B)(2)(b) does not contain permission for the state to appeal an attorney fee award under R.C. 2335.39 if an agency adjudication order pursuant to R.C. 119.12 is not the subject of the underlying appeal. Because the instant appeal does not involve such a circumstance, we rely on the plain language of the statute and … conclude this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
Copyright © 2025 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved