Even if the appointment of a Sylvania Township trustee was improper, a fellow trustee cannot compel a county judge to remove and replace the new trustee, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the request by Sylvania Township Trustee John Jennewine to direct Lucas County Probate Court Judge Jack Puffenberger to name a new township trustee. Jennewine argued the township did not follow the legal process to name Jill Johnson a trustee in August 2024.

The Court stated that Jennewine was not in a legal position to oust Johnson even if Johnson was appointed through a flawed process. Judge Puffenberger could only fill a vacancy on the board of trustees and could not replace a trustee, the opinion stated.

Trustees Could Not Settle on Replacement
John Crandall resigned as a Sylvania Township trustee in July 2024. R.C. 503.24 provides the process for appointing a person to a vacant township trustee position. Under the law, the remaining trustees have 30 days to fill the vacancy. Jennewine and the other remaining trustees did not fill the post.

If the trustees fail to act, R.C. 503.24 then directs the “committee of five on the last-filed nomination petition of the township officers whose vacancy is to be filled who are residents of the township” to make an appointment in 10 days. If the committee of five fails to fill the vacancy, then the county probate judge is required to appoint a trustee.

Crandall’s nominating committee of five was responsible for making an appointment once the other Sylvania Township trustees declined to act. Four of the five members were alive, and all continued to be township residents. The four originally conducted several meetings, but before a vote was taken, one of the four stopped participating in committee business.

The three remaining committee members then met. Two voted to appoint Johnson, and the third member abstained. Johnson took the oath of office in August 2024 and has since participated in township business.

Trustee Objected to Appointment
Two weeks after Johnson’s appointment, Jennewine filed a complaint, claiming that the township did not comply with R.C. 503.24 when Johnson was appointed by only two members of the original committee of five. Jennewine sought writs of quo warranto, procedendo, and mandamus from the Supreme Court to try to remove Johnson and have Judge Puffenberger fill the vacancy.

Johnson’s complaint was filed after the county prosecutor declined to seek a writ of quo warranto to remove Johnson from the appointed position. The Court dismissed all claims against Johnson and removed her as a party in the case.

The Court dismissed the writs of procedendo and quo warranto claims against Judge Puffenberger, but required the judge to answer the complaint regarding the writ of mandamus. The judge responded, asking the Court to deny Jennewine’s request for a writ of mandamus.

Supreme Court Analyzed Election Law
When a judge fails to fill a vacancy as required by statute, a writ of mandamus is the appropriate action to compel the judge to make an appointment, the per curiam opinion noted. The Court stated that Jennewine could seek to have Judge Puffenberger make an appointment only if the trustee post were vacant.

The Court analyzed the law to determine whether the seat should be considered vacant before deciding whether the judge has a duty to fill the vacancy. The appropriate action for removing a person from office is through a writ of quo warranto, the opinion stated.

Under Ohio law, the state attorney general, a county prosecutor, or a person with a good faith claim that they are entitled to hold the office can bring a quo warranto action. The county prosecutor declined, and Jennewine is not a person seeking Johnson’s office, the opinion noted.

Jennewine argued that Johnson does not have to be ousted from office in order for Judge Puffenberger to make an appointment. The Court rejected the argument, noting R.C. 503.24 does not direct a probate court to remove township trustees, only to fill vacancies.

“While a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel an appointing authority to exercise his power of appointment and fill a vacancy, it cannot be used to compel such action when no vacancy exists.”

The Court noted that Johnson may be a “de facto” trustee and may be holding an office she is not entitled to have.

“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. By all accounts, Johnson is at least a de facto officer,” the opinion stated.

The Court noted that a de facto officer is treated the same as an officer legally holding the job, and the officer’s actions are legal until a proper quo warranto challenge removes the officer. Since Johnson has not been removed, Judge Puffenberger has no duty to appoint a trustee, the Court concluded.

2024-1238. State ex rel. Jennewine v. Puffenberger, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-3041.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.