$20 Million Verdict Against East Cleveland Must Be Paid, Ohio Supreme Court Rules

Published July 30, 2024 · Ohio Supreme Court

Winning a verdict against a city should be the end of the fight. For Arnold Black, it was not. Five years after a Cuyahoga County jury awarded him $20 million, the City of East Cleveland still had not paid a dollar, and it had not even answered his lawyer's letters. On July 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously ordered the city to pay.

The decision is State ex rel. Black v. E. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2688. It is the second time in about 17 months that the Court has had to order the same city to honor a jury's verdict, and it sends a clear message to every city, county and township in Ohio: a judgment is not optional.

What happened to Arnold Black

According to the Court's opinion, East Cleveland police arrested Mr. Black during a traffic stop in April 2012, even though an arresting officer later admitted there was no legitimate reason to stop or detain him. When Mr. Black told a detective he did not know who sold drugs in the city, the detective repeatedly struck him in the face and head. He was then held for four days in a cockroach-infested storage room the officers called a "holding cell," with no bed and no toilet.

In August 2019, a jury found the detective liable for excessive force, battery and false arrest, found the police chief liable as well, and found that the city's own policies or customs caused the violation of Mr. Black's rights. The jury awarded $20 million in compensatory damages against all defendants jointly and severally, plus $15 million in punitive damages against each of the two officers. The trial court added $5.2 million in prejudgment interest.

The city appealed and lost in the Eighth District Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to hear the case, and the United States Supreme Court declined as well. Mr. Black's attorney wrote to the city in October 2021 demanding payment. The city never responded.

Why a winning plaintiff had to sue again

You might wonder why Mr. Black could not simply collect the judgment the way you would against a private company, by garnishing bank accounts or seizing property. The answer is in Ohio's immunity statute.

Under R.C. 2744.06(A), the money and property of a political subdivision are not subject to execution, garnishment or attachment to satisfy an injury judgment. In exchange, the statute requires the subdivision to pay: judgments "shall be paid" from appropriated funds, and if there is not enough money appropriated, the city's fiscal officer must certify the unpaid amount for the next budget.

Because the usual collection tools are off the table, the only way to force a city that ignores that duty is a writ of mandamus, a court order commanding a public official or body to do what the law requires.

What the Court decided

All seven justices joined the opinion. The Court held that R.C. 2744.06(A) gave Mr. Black a clear legal right to payment and imposed a clear legal duty on the city to pay, emphasizing that the word "shall" in a statute makes compliance mandatory. It ordered East Cleveland to pay the full compensatory judgment, the prejudgment interest, and statutory post-judgment interest running from August 15, 2019, until the day the judgment is paid. Mr. Black calculated the total at more than $30.4 million as of August 2023.

If the city does not have enough money already set aside, the Court ordered it to follow the statute's appropriation process to raise it.

The city's last-minute arguments

After the deadline for evidence had passed, East Cleveland filed a motion back in the trial court asking for two things: permission to pay part of the judgment in annual installments, and application of a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages against political subdivisions found in R.C. 2744.05(C)(1). It then argued the Supreme Court should deny the writ because that motion, if granted, could reduce what it owed.

The Court rejected that argument. It noted that its rules did not allow the city to attach a trial-court motion to its brief as evidence, and it held that Mr. Black had proven the exact amount owed through the jury's verdict, the judgment entry, the interest order and the appellate decision. The Court did not decide whether the cap could have applied. What it decided is that a city cannot hold off paying an affirmed judgment by filing a new motion years later.

It is also worth knowing what the installment statute itself says. Under R.C. 2744.06(B)(2), a court may not allow installment payments on the part of a judgment that represents the injured person's actual loss, such as lost wages and medical bills already incurred. Even when installments are allowed on the rest, the payments must give the injured person the same economic result as a lump sum.

Second time for the same city

In February 2023, in State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland, 171 Ohio St.3d 796, 2023-Ohio-407, the Court ordered East Cleveland to pay a negligence judgment of nearly $8 million won by people hurt in a crash involving an East Cleveland police officer. I wrote about that case in our post on the Hunt decision. The Black opinion relies directly on Hunt.

Taken together, the two cases establish that the duty to pay applies whether the judgment arises from a negligent police crash or from intentional police misconduct.

Why this matters for injury victims in the Dayton area

Most cities and counties pay their judgments, usually through insurance or a risk-sharing pool. But the Black case answers a question families sometimes ask before they agree to take on a government defendant: "Even if we win, will they actually pay?" The answer from Ohio's highest court is yes, and the interest keeps running until they do. On a judgment this size, post-judgment interest alone adds up quickly, which gives a city every reason to pay promptly.

That matters because government defendants are involved in many serious injury cases: police pursuits, city trucks and buses, poorly maintained roads, and misconduct by public employees. In May, I wrote about the $4.8 million Cleveland settlement for a 13-year-old girl killed by a car fleeing police. Those recoveries mean something only because the law requires payment.

What this means for you

• Claims against cities, counties and townships are real claims. Immunity has exceptions, and our page on claims against the government explains them.
• A judgment against a political subdivision must be paid. If a city drags its feet, mandamus is available, and interest accrues in the meantime.
• Collectability is part of case value. Our guide chapter on what your case is worth explains why who pays, and how, matters as much as the size of the verdict.
• Damage caps and installment rules can apply to government defendants. They should be addressed early in the case, not left for a fight after the verdict.