Where an audit report sets forth that any public money has been illegally expended, or that any public money collected has not been accounted for, or that any public money due has not been collected, or that any public property has been converted or misappropriated, the officer receiving the certified copy of the report pursuant to section 117.27 of the Revised Code may, within one hundred twenty days after receiving the report, institute civil action in the proper court in the name of the public office to which the public money is due or the public property belongs for the recovery of the money or property and prosecute the action to final determination.
The auditor of state shall notify the attorney general in writing of every audit report which sets forth that any public money has been illegally expended, or that any public money collected has not been accounted for, or that any public money due has not been collected, or that any public property has been converted or misappropriated and of the date that the report was filed.
Within one hundred twenty days after receiving the certified copy of the report, the officer receiving the report shall notify the attorney general in writing of whether any legal action has been taken. If no legal action has been taken, the officer shall, within the same period, notify the attorney general in writing of the reason why legal action has not been taken. The attorney general or his assistant may appear in any such action on behalf of the public office and may, either in conjunction with or independent of the officer receiving the report, prosecute an action to final determination. The attorney general may bring the action in any case where the officer fails to do so within one hundred twenty days after the audit report has been filed.
Sun Bldg. Ltd. P'ship v. Value Learning & Teaching Academy, Inc., 2021-Ohio-2008, 175 N.E.3d 10. · cites it 21דIf the auditor’s report observes a misappropriation of public funds, see R.C. 117.28, that determination is often referred to as a “finding for recovery.”
State, Ex Rel. Holcomb v. Walton, 586 N.E.2d 176 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1990). · cites it 15דOn September 12,1988, Holcomb sought to recover the alleged illegally expended funds by instituting an action in the name of Butler County pursuant to R.C. 117.28 against then sheriff, defendant-appellee/cross-appellee, Robert A.”
Cordray v. Int'l Preparatory Sch., 2010-Ohio-6136, 128 Ohio St. 3d 50. · cites it 3ד” {¶ 7} R.C. 117.28 and 117.36 authorize the state to institute a civil action to reduce to judgment any audit findings that show the misuse of public funds.”
DeWine v. Scott (In re Scott), 566 B.R. 471 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2017). · cites it 3דOhio law authorizes the auditor to issue a “finding for recovery” in an audit report when the auditor determines that legal action may be appropriate to recover public money or property.”
Cincinnati Ins. v. CPS Holdings, Inc., 875 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2007). “Nine causes of action were set forth, including negligence, professional negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, conversion, unjust enrichment, recovery of public funds under R.C. 117.28, and piercing of the corporate veil.”
State ex rel. Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Peterson, 2021-Ohio-4124, 182 N.E.3d 41. · cites it 5דThe state brought a claim to reduce the audit’s findings to a judgment pursuant to R.C. 117.28, 117.30, and 117.36. The state also brought a claim for public official strict liability pursuant to R.”
State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Ass'n v. Montgomery, 800 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 4ד{¶ 7} Based on the audit report, in December 2002, ODE filed a complaint in the common pleas court pursuant to R.C. 117.28 1 to recover the illegally expended money from Ministerial.”
Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund v. City of Akron, 778 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2002). · cites it 13ד{¶ 5} As a result of the report, the Fund filed a complaint against the City, alleging a cause of action to recover illegally expended public money pursuant to R.C. 117.28, seeking $731,300. The Fund later amended its complaint to include causes of action for negligence,…”
Green Local Teachers Assn. v. Blevins, 539 N.E.2d 653 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1987). · cites it 4דAppellant argues that courts will not grant relief from unilateral mistakes of fact that result from the complaining party’s negligence, that the payments made to the teachers were made and accepted in good faith and under color of law, and that R.C. 117.28, 3317.13(B) and…”
Woodman v. Tubbs Jones, 660 N.E.2d 520 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1995). “10 (now R.C, 117.28), which stated that a civil action to recover funds misappropriated by public officials shall be instituted within ninety days after receiving a report indicating misappropriation, was directory rather than mandatory.”
Petro v. North Coast Villas Ltd., 735 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2000). “R.C. 117.28. See, also, Harris v. Stutzman (1989), 42 Ohio St.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.