COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73972 UNIREA SOCIETATILOR ROMANE : CARPATINA OF CLEVELAND, : ET AL., : : Plaintiffs-Appellants : JOURNAL ENTRY : and vs. : OPINION : ALEXANDER SUBA, ET AL., : : Defendants-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 12, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. 331387 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED : IN PART, AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiffs-appellants: Bruce P. Batista David J. Tocco VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE 1375 East Ninth Street One Cleveland Center, Suite 2100 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendants-appellees: E. John Brzytwa Kevin Young MARTINDALE, BRZYTWA & QUICK 1660 West Second Street 900 Skylight Office Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1411 -2- NAHRA, J.: The Union & League of Romanian Societies of America, Inc., is a fraternal benefit organization in which the Carpatina Society is a member, that provides injury, accident and death benefits to its members and their beneficiaries. In late 1993, or early 1994, appellees Suba and Barsan were elected respectively, president and financial secretary of the Carpatina Society. Further, Suba was elected a delegate to the 1994 Convention of the Union & League. In March of 1995, the Executive Committee of the Union & League having confirmed that appellees had spent funds contrary to the bylaws of the Carpatina Society and the Union & League, suspended appellees from office. In October 1995, these suspensions were further affirmed, and the Carpatina Society was informed that appellees would be ineligible for re-election to office. In February 1996, an election was held and appellants Moga and Tribitas were elected officers of the Carpatina Society and replaced appellees. After confirmation of these elections by the Union & League and the Executive Committee, the appellants sought the return of their books and records from appellees; however, this request was refused. The case sub judice was brought by the appellants, the Carpatina Society, the officers of the Carpatina Society, and the Union & League, in order to recover the books and records withheld by appellees, and to recover the damages resulting from appellees' misuse of Carpatina's funds. Specifically, appellants' complaint -3- set forth four separate claims for relief: (1) conversion; (2) replevin; (3) accounting; and, (4) breach of fiduciary duty. Appellants sought: (1) injunctive relief to protect the records and books of the Society, and to require appellees to return such books and records; (2) an Order of Possession with respect to the minutes and financial ledgers of Carpatina; and (3) an accounting and an award of damages in the amount of misappropriated funds by appellees. Appellees' counterclaim specifically sought a declaration that appellees, Suba and Barsan, were the proper officers of Carpatina, and that the subsequent election of Moga and Trimbitas be declared null and void. On May 14, 1997, appellees filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that appellants' claim was in quo warranto and, therefore, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2733. Similarly, appellants moved to dismiss appellees' counterclaim on quo warranto grounds. On February 6, 1998, the trial court dismissed, without opinion, the complaint and counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants timely filed and assigns one error for our review. Appellants' sole assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY 1) DETERMINING THAT IT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE MULTIPLE CLAIMS ASSERTED IN APPELLANTS' COMPLAINT, AND 2) DISMISSING SAME. Quo warranto is the only proceeding that may be utilized to challenge another's title to public office. Beasley v. East Cleveland (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 370. Quo warranto is also the -4- proper remedy for determining the legal right of an officer of an incorporated nonprofit association to hold an office. State ex rel. East Cleveland Democratic Club, Inc. v. Bibb (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 85. However, in bringing such an action, original jurisdiction lies with the courts of appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court. Id. See, also, Section 2, Article IV, Ohio Constitution. It follows that common pleas courts do not have the authority or the power to order declaratory or injunctive relief which effectively provides quo warranto relief and thereby circumvent this specialized remedy. Beasley, supra. However, any ancillary claims to a quo warranto action, such as damages or the rights and obligations of the respective parties, should remain properly under the jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, and be appropriately disposed of by those courts. Id., see, also, Ohio Hospital Association v. Community Mutual Insurance Co. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 215, 509 N.E.2d 1263. In the instant case, both the appellees and the appellants were granted a motion to dismiss on quo warranto grounds. Specifically, the appellees were seeking to be reinstated into their elected positions in the Carpatina Society. While the appellants were seeking the return of their documents, an accounting and an award of damages in the amount of funds misappropriated by the appellees. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the appellees' claim seeking to be reinstated to an elected office of a non-profit corporation, is an action in quo warranto and should have been -5- filed with this court or the Ohio Supreme Court. However, the claims being sought by appellants are ancillary to the core of that quo warranto action and should have remained under the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. Accordingly, this assignment of error is well taken. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. -6- This cause is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to be divided equally between plaintiffs-appellants and defendants-appellees. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOSEPH J. NAHRA JUDGE BLACKMON, A.J., and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .