Middletown Ohio

Find us on
 Twitter and Facebook


Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us Sunday, September 22, 2019
Aerial view of Middletown, Hook Field can be seen in the upper right
Middletown, Ohio

Newest Forum Members


Recent Topics

Fall 2019 Election
US mainstream media NBC exposes the true face of F
Middletown: A field of Dreams?
hops in the hanger
LED Street Lights
Have a Nice Retirement Chief Muterspaw
Gracies Ownership
Prosperity In Middletown
Happy Father's Day
Blast Furnace Pizza Closing

Community Events
hops in the hanger
Middletown Canal Museum
Middletown Historical Society Events
Middies Quarter Auction
Santa parade

City Manager
Middletown: A field of Dreams?
U.S. 2020 Census - What Will It Reveal?
My Boy Adkins

Economic Development
It Appears Lincoln School Is Next
Downtown Development-The Middletonian
Looks Like Trouble In Downtown's Paradise
Business Closings
Sorg Opera House

City Council
Fall 2019 Election
What the???
Vitori Alley Paving
Downtown Public Wifi
Vitori/Gracies State Tax Lien

Income and Property Tax
Mulligan's State of the City Speech
Proposed City Road Levy: Mayor Mulligan Op-Ed
Taxes and City-Subsidized "Downtown" Deals
Middletown-High Taxes-Low Values
Senior organization wants levy renewal

Community Revitalization
Bikes For Rent In The Downtown Area
Why Not The Whole City?
Back In The Real Estate Business Again
The old Lincoln school and their downtown
The Manchester-A "hot potato"

School Board
Behind our backs???
School board candidates
Be Gone, you have no power here
Focus on future not past
State report card stigmatizes district

School Tax Issues
Property taxes going up
Middletown Schools: No tax hike
Tax Revenue
Tax Anticipation Notes

School Achievements
Science Help From Outside The District
Every Ohio district ranked
How did your school perform
Middletown receives low marks
District score in reading, graduation

Middletown Sports

Misc Middletown News
LED Street Lights
Prosperity In Middletown
Blast Furnace Pizza Closing
Trenton/Midd City Jail Contract
Make It Middletown Ron......

For Sale
Upright Freezer
Want to Buy-Core Aerator
Free To A Forever Home
Found Jack Russell

Real Estate for Rent
Home for Rent - 3505 Lorne Drive Killeen, TX 76542
2602 Lu Circle Killeen, TX 76543
Tips To Upgrade Your Outdoor Area
Eye-Catching Rental Listing
Tips on Dealing with Bad Tenants

Real Estate for Sale
Great house!
Real estate prices to rise
Is Commercial Property Still a Good Investment?
Real Estate Listing
Sorg Mansion

Outside World
Operation Welcome Home
New spike in drug overdoses in Hamilton
Viet Nam onPBS
Medical Marijuana Not Legal in Middletown
EDUCATION across all TV net works!
85% Drop in Food Stamp after work requirement
$11M project at Middletown
MetroParks seeks levy
Many Ohioans struggling financially
Hearings on medical marijuana
Living in poverty
Tenant Displacement to Middletown
Ohio Gun Owners...
Butler County Foreclosures
TechOlympics Champions
Middletown Community News
Records Law Update
Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:29:14 AM - Middletown Ohio

From Judy Gilleland - City Manager

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of Rhodes v. City of New Philadelphia, 2011-Ohio-3279, will result in a significant change to Ohio’s public records law. The Supreme Court stated: The destruction of a public record in violation of R.C. 149.351(A) gives rise to a forfeiture to any person who is “aggrieved” by the destruction – A party is not “aggrieved” by the destruction of a record when the party’s objective in requesting the record is not to obtain the record but to seek a forfeiture for the wrongful destruction of the record.

In this case, Rhodes requested reel-to-reel audio tapes of 911 calls. New Philadelphia had destroyed the tapes without the use of an approved records retention policy. Under R.C. 149.351, Rhodes filed a lawsuit seeking $1,000 for each of the 4,968 violations, which represented each of the calls on all of the tapes, the equivalent of nearly 5 million dollars plus attorneys’ fees.

The primary dispute in the case was whether or not Rhodes was aggrieved by the improper disposal of the 911 tapes. Ultimately, the jury returned with a unanimous verdict in favor of New Philadelphia finding that Rhodes was not aggrieved by the unauthorized disposal of the records. Rhodes filed an appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeals who reversed the decision of the trial court finding that Rhodes was aggrieved because he made a lawful records request and he was not given those records.

New Philadelphia appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio who accepted discretionary jurisdiction over the appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that a person is not aggrieved by the destruction of a public record when the requester’s only intent was to prove the non-existence of the record. As a result, New Philadelphia will not have to pay out the nearly $5 million in forfeiture awards.

In other public records law news, prior to the release of the above opinion, the Ohio legislature made significant changes to the penalties for improperly destroying public records. Changes to R.C. 149.351 include the following:

Once a person recovers a forfeiture in a civil action commenced under division (B) (2) of this section, no other person may recover a forfeiture under that division for a violation of division (A) of this section involving the same record, regardless of the number of persons aggrieved by a violation of division (A) of this section or the number of civil actions commenced under this section.

A civil action for injunctive relief under division (B)(1) of this section or a civil action to recover a forfeiture under division (B)(2) of this section shall be commenced within five years after the day in which division (A) of this section was allegedly violated or was threatened to be violated.


  • A civil action to recover forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars for each violation, but not to exceed a cumulative total of ten thousand dollars, regardless of the number of violations, and to obtain an award of the reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the person in the civil action not to exceed the forfeiture amount recovered.

  • A person is not aggrieved by a violation of division (A) of this section if clear and convincing evidence shows that the request for a record was contrived as a pretext to create potential liability under this section. The commencement of a civil action under division (B) of this section waives any right under this chapter to decline to divulge the purpose for requesting the record, but only to the extent needed to evaluate whether the request was contrived as a pretext to create potential liability under this section.

  • In a civil action under division (B) of this section, if clear and convincing evidence shows that the request for a record was a pretext to create potential liability under this section, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to any defendant or defendants in the action.

Copyright ©2019 MiddletownUSA.com    Privacy Statement  |   Terms of Use  |   Site by Xponex Media  |   Advertising Information