# State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys.

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 10, 2025 · 2025 Ohio 2056

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11068397

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 10, 2025
- **Citations:** 2025 Ohio 2056
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11068397

## Opinion text

[Cite as State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys., 2025-Ohio-2056.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Cory A. Haydocy, :

Relator, :
No. 24AP-432
v. :
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Ohio Public Employee Retirement :
System,
:
Respondent.
:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on June 10, 2025

On brief: Cory A. Haydocy, pro se.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Henrique A. Geigel,
and Lisa A. Reid, for Respondent.

IN MANDAMUS
ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

PER CURIAM

{¶ 1} On July 12, 2024, relator, Cory A. Haydocy, filed this original action
requesting a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent, the Ohio Public Employee
Retirement System (“OPERS”), to process his application for a transfer of funds. On
August 1, 2024, OPERS filed a motion to dismiss. Haydocy filed a motion for summary
judgment, a motion to expedite proceedings and for a prehearing telephone conference, a
motion to compel discovery, and a motion for a Rule 16 status conference.
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
this court referred the matter to a magistrate of this court. The magistrate issued the
appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate found
that Haydocy could not establish that OPERS was under a clear legal duty to make his
No. 24AP-432 2

requested rollover payment without OPERS’s required notarized form. Accordingly, the
magistrate recommended that this court grant OPERS’s motion to dismiss. (Appended
Mag. Decision at ¶ 39.)
{¶ 3} Haydocy filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, we must
independently review the decision to ascertain whether “the magistrate has properly
determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). For
the following reasons, we adopt the magistrate’s decision, grant OPERS’s motion to
dismiss, and deny Haydocy’s motions.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
{¶ 4} In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Haydocy catalogued the following
series of events. Haydocy stated that he “was employed continuously by the State of Ohio
from October 1, 2012 to December 29, 2023, contributing to [OPERS] concurrently. He
held various positions, including Executive Director of the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission.”
(July 12, 2024 Petition at 2.)
{¶ 5} In a letter dated February 29, 2024, after Haydocy left his employment with
the state, Haydocy wrote to Ohio Deferred Compensation (“ODC”) and requested the
transfer of the entire value of his OPERS account from his employment with the state to an
ODC account. On May 28, 2024, Haydocy sent a similar letter to OPERS, requesting the
transfer of his funds in OPERS to an account with ODC. Haydocy stated in his petition that,
around June 27, 2024, he became aware of an OPERS internal policy that “mandated the
submission of a notarized form prior to the issuance of refunds exceeding ten thousand
dollars.” Id. at 3. On June 27, 2024, Haydocy sent a demand letter to OPERS, stating that
he met the statutory requirements for a refund under R.C. 140.45 and requesting the
processing of his request and the disbursement of funds within five business days. (Ex. D
at 1.) Haydocy, however, did not submit a notarized consent form to OPERS.
{¶ 6} On June 28, 2024, OPERS responded to Haydocy’s request, stating that it
had received his May 28, 2024 application, that it immediately sent him a consent form to
be executed and notarized, and that it had not received a notarized consent form back from
Haydocy. OPERS further stated that it was “willing to make this process as easy as possible,
including notarizing the form for you in the OPERS office.” (Ex. E.) OPERS stated that it
No. 24AP-432 3

required notarization for refunds greater than $10,000 for the protection of all OPERS
member accounts. Id.
{¶ 7} In a July 8, 2024 letter addressed to Haydocy, ODC stated that it still had not
received the roll over sum from Haydocy’s OPERS account. (Ex. A.) On July 12, 2024,
Haydocy filed his petition for writ of mandamus with this court and the matter was referred
to a magistrate.
{¶ 8} On August 1, 2024, OPERS filed a motion to dismiss in which it argued
Haydocy was not entitled to relief, as OPERS’s requirement of notarization of requests for
refunds and rollover applications is authorized under R.C. Chapter 145. OPERS further
stated in its motion to dismiss that Haydocy’s requested rollover is governed by Adm.Code
145-2-67(A) which directs that rollovers occur “at the time and in the manner prescribed
by the board.”
{¶ 9} On December 23, 2024, the magistrate found that Haydocy could not
establish that OPERS was under a clear legal duty to make the rollover payment without
the submission of a notarized form. (Mag.’s Decision at ¶ 39.) The magistrate determined
that “consistent with the broad authority granted by R.C. 145.09 and the board’s fiduciary
duty to safeguard the funds entrusted to it under R.C. 145.11, the board adopted rules that
specifically provide for withholding a payment until required information—such as the
notarized form at issue in this matter—has been provided by those seeking the payment.”
Id. at 7. Accordingly, the magistrate recommended that this court grant OPERS’s motion
to dismiss.
{¶ 10} On December 24, 2024, Haydocy filed a motion to set aside the magistrate’s
decision, along with 23 objections to said decision, and requested that this court grant his
petition for a writ of mandamus. We now consider Haydocy’s objections to the magistrate’s
decision and his various motions.
II. ANALYSIS
{¶ 11} For this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must ordinarily show a
clear legal right to the relief sought, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to
provide such relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967).
No. 24AP-432 4

{¶ 12} A motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests the sufficiency of the
complaint. “In order for a court to dismiss a case pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) ‘it must appear
beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him
to recovery.’ ” T & M Machines, LLC v. Yost, 2020-Ohio-551, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.), quoting
O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975), syllabus. In
construing a complaint upon a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, a court must presume that all factual
allegations in the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in the relator’s
favor. LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 2007-Ohio-3608, ¶ 14.
A. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 19th, and 20th objections
{¶ 13} In his second, third, fourth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, nineteenth, and twentieth,
objections to the magistrate’s decision, Haydocy argues that OPERS has no legal basis or
authority to require notarization, is compelled to release Haydocy’s funds, and that OPERS
abused its discretion. We do not agree.
{¶ 14} As noted by the magistrate, OPERS has a fiduciary duty to safeguard the
funds it oversees and is granted broad authority under Chapter 145 of the Revised Code in
order to do so. “R.C. 145.11(A) imposes upon the board a general duty to safeguard and
prudently invest the funds entrusted to it.” State ex rel. Tarrier v. Pub. Emps. Retirement
Bd., 2021-Ohio-649, ¶ 21. R.C. 145.09 further directs that “[t]he board shall perform other
functions as required for the proper execution of this chapter, and may adopt rules in
accordance with section 111.15 of the Revised Code for the proper administration and
management of this chapter.”
{¶ 15} It is under this grant of authority that the OPERS board adopted rules under
Adm.Code 145, including Adm.Code 145-2-67(A), which states that a “distributee may elect,
at the time and in the manner prescribed by the board, to have any portion of an eligible
rollover distribution paid directly to an eligible retirement plan specified by the distribute
in a direct roller.” Adm.Code 145-2-70(B) also directs that recipients of a benefit “shall
provide to the retirement system . . . such other information as may be required by the
retirement system” and allows OPERS to withhold benefits or payments until OPERS
receives the required information. We do not agree with Haydocy that OPERS had no legal
basis for requiring notarization, nor do we conclude it was an abuse of discretion for OPERS
to require notarization prior to the rollover of funds.
No. 24AP-432 5

{¶ 16} In his eleventh objection, Haydocy argues that R.C. 145.40 directs that
OPERS “shall pay the member the member’s accumulated contributions” if more than two
months have passed since the end of the member’s service and they have not returned to
service. He contends that, under this language, OPERS does not have the discretion to
withhold his accumulated contributions. He directs this court to State ex rel. Davis v.
Public Emps. Retirement Bd., 119 Ohio App. 181 (10th Dist. 1963). Haydocy argues that
Davis held that an agency cannot impose requirements not explicitly found in the law and
that OPERS’s actions here mimic the unlawful conduct rejected in Davis. However, upon
closer reading of Davis we do not agree. In Davis, this court rejected an OPERS policy
requiring that an employing agency certify “that the employment has been terminated
before a payment of contributions is made to a separated employee.” Id. This court,
however, noted that “there has been no showing that such a certification is required by a
duly adopted rule or regulation, or by any of the statutes of the state of Ohio under which
the system operates.” Id. As we have noted above, that is not the case here, as the relevant
provisions of the Revised Code and administrative rules allow OPERS to require proof of
identity through notarization prior to the rolling over of funds.
B. 10th, 13th, 15th, 16th, and 17th objections
{¶ 17} Haydocy’s tenth, thirteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth objections
argue that the magistrate erred in granting OPERS’s motion to dismiss, that a writ of
mandamus is the appropriate remedy, and that the magistrate erred in not reaching the
merits of Haydocy’s petition. We do not agree. As discussed above, OPERS was within its
statutory, rule-making, and discretionary authority to require the notarization form prior
to granting Haydocy’s rollover request. Therefore, as the magistrate found, Haydocy
cannot show that he has a clear legal right to his requested relief or that OPERS had a clear
legal duty to provide the requested rollover without the required notarization, and
dismissal is appropriate.
{¶ 18} We also note that Haydocy argues that the magistrate accepted OPERS’s
mischaracterizations of the facts and law without critical examination and that dismissing
his claim before the merits are adjudicated is a deprivation of due process. (Objs. at 13.)
We reject this contention, as our independent review of the record and arguments has led
No. 24AP-432 6

us to determine that “the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and
appropriately applied the law.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
C. 1st, 5th, 14th, and 21st objections
{¶ 19} In his first, fifth, fourteenth, and twenty-first objections to the magistrate’s
decision, Haydocy raises constitutional arguments that his property and due process
procedural rights have been violated. However, Haydocy did not raise these constitutional
arguments in his petition for a writ of mandamus and we now decline to address them.
State ex rel. Van Dyke v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 2003-Ohio-4123, ¶ 42 (Supreme
Court of Ohio finding that it need not address the merits of constitutional claims as they
were not raised in the complaint and the other party did not expressly or impliedly consent
to litigation of those claims), citing State ex rel. Miller v. Reed, 1999-Ohio-315, 87 Ohio
St.3d 159 (1999).
D. 7th, 8th, 18th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd objections
{¶ 20} In his seventh, eighth, eighteenth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-
third objections to the magistrate’s decision, Haydocy takes issue with OPERS actions,
claiming it operated with a lack of transparency, unresponsiveness, and unlawful delay. We
reject these objections as they are not supported by the record, nor do they provide Haydocy
with a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus. As we have noted above, OPERS operated
within its statutory, rule-making and discretionary authority and therefore did not
unlawfully delay the rollover of Haydocy’s funds to ODC.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 21} For these reasons, we overrule each of Haydocy’s objections to the
magistrate’s decision and adopt the magistrate’s decision, including the magistrate’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law, as our own. Haydocy has not established that he is
entitled to a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we grant OPERS’s motion to dismiss, deny
the writ, dismiss the action, and deny Haydocy’s pending motions as moot.
Objections overruled.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted;
petition for writ of mandamus denied
and motions denied as moot.

MENTEL, BOGGS, and LELAND, JJ., concur.
No. 24AP-432 7

APPENDIX
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Cory A. Haydocy, :

Relator, :

v. : No. 24AP-432

Ohio Public Employee Retirement System, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Respondent. :

MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

Rendered on December 23, 2024

Cory Haydocy, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Henrique A. Geigel, and Lisa A.
Reid, for respondent.

IN MANDAMUS
ON MOTIONS

{¶ 22} Relator Cory A. Haydocy requests the issuance of a writ of mandamus
ordering respondent Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (“OPERS”) to process his
application for transfer of funds. OPERS has filed a motion to dismiss. Haydocy has filed a
motion for summary judgment and a motion to expedite proceedings and for a prehearing
telephone conference. For the following reasons, the magistrate recommends granting
OPERS’s motion to dismiss.

I. Findings of Fact
{¶ 23} 1. Haydocy commenced this original action with the filing of his petition for
writ of mandamus on July 12, 2024.
No. 24AP-432 8

{¶ 24} 2. The petition contains several attached exhibits and Haydocy’s notarized
affidavit, in which Haydocy states that the factual representations contained in the petition
and attached exhibits are true and accurate.
{¶ 25} 3. As alleged in the petition, Haydocy was continuously employed by the State
of Ohio from October 1, 2012 through December 29, 2023, during which time he
contributed to the retirement system administered by OPERS. Haydocy has not resumed
state service since December 29, 2023, a period of more than 60 days at the time of the
filing of his petition. On February 29, 2024, Ohio Deferred Compensation (“ODC”) received
a letter from Haydocy requesting the transfer of the entire value of his OPERS account to
an account managed by ODC.
{¶ 26} Haydocy further alleges that on May 28, 2024, he sent a letter to OPERS
requesting the transfer of the market value of his OPERS account to an account managed
by ODC. On or about June 27, 2024, Haydocy alleges he became aware of an internal
OPERS policy mandating the submission of a notarized form prior to the issuance of funds
exceeding ten thousand dollars. On June 27, 2024, Haydocy sent a letter by email to OPERS
demanding the processing of his requested transfer within five business days. In the letter,
which was attached as an exhibit to the petition, Haydocy states that he “submitted a second
application online on May 28, 2024, for my OPERS fund to be released and rolled over to
my Ohio Deferred Compensation account.” (Petition at 15, Ex. D.)
{¶ 27} Haydocy alleges that on June 28, 2024, OPERS responded to Haydocy’s June
27, 2024 email. As reflected in an exhibit attached to the petition, counsel for OPERS
stated:
The OPERS Board is tasked with safeguarding the accounts of
OPERS members. The Board is also granted discretion on how
to carry out those and other duties required by Ohio Revised
Code Chapter 145. See generally, ORC 145.09, 145.11. As has
already been explained to you, part of the safeguards put in
place for the protection of all OPERS’ member accounts,
including yours, is to require notarization for refunds greater
that [sic] ten-thousand dollars.
You submitted your application on May 28, 2024.
Immediately after your submission, the OPERS system
emailed you the attached Member Consent for Refund from
Traditional Plan Application (Consent Form). There is no
record of an earlier application. As of this writing, you have
failed to complete the Consent Form, which is part of the
No. 24AP-432 9

application required by ORC 145.40. Therefore, because your
application is incomplete and pursuant to OAC 145-1-09, staff
will void your partial application if the Consent Form is not
received. As explained to you, OPERS is willing to make this
process as easy as possible, including notarizing the form for
you in the OPERS’ office.
(Emphasis in original.) (Petition at 17, Ex. E.)
{¶ 28} Also attached to the petition was a letter purportedly sent from ODC to
Haydocy on July 8, 2024. In the letter, it is stated that “[a]ccording to our records, on
[February 29, 2024], we received a roll-in form for a sum to be sent from OPERS to Ohio
Deferred Compensation.” (Petition at 11, Ex. A.) As reflected in the letter from ODC,
Haydocy alleges that as of July 8, 2024, ODC had not received the funds.
{¶ 29} 4. Haydocy claims entitlement to relief in mandamus because OPERS has
failed to comply with R.C. 145.40. Haydocy claims OPERS’s violation of the law has resulted
in substantial damages to Haydocy due to his inability to access and enjoy his property
rights and benefits. Haydocy claims that “OPERS has the authority to process refund
applications but lacks the discretion to deny Relator’s request to rollover funds to ODC.”
(Petition at 6.)
{¶ 30} 5. On August 1, 2024, OPERS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
{¶ 31} 6. On August 14, 2024, Haydocy filed a combined response in opposition to
OPERS’s motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 32} 7. On December 16, 2024, Haydocy filed a motion to expedite proceedings
and for a prehearing telephone conference.

II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law
{¶ 33} Haydocy seeks a writ of mandamus ordering OPERS to process his
application for the rollover payment of funds, in addition to such other relief as deemed
just and proper.

A. Mandamus

{¶ 34} A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy “ ‘issued in the name of the
state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty.’ ” State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt, 159
No. 24AP-432 10

Ohio St.3d 357, 2020-Ohio-875, ¶ 7, quoting R.C. 2731.01. See State ex rel. Blachere v.
Tyack, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-478, 2023-Ohio-781, ¶ 13 (stating that the purpose of
mandamus is to compel the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station). A writ of mandamus will issue where Haydocy
establishes by clear and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief,
(2) a clear legal duty on the part of respondents to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Gil-Llamas v. Hardin, 164 Ohio St.3d
364, 2021-Ohio-1508, ¶ 19.

B. OPERS’s Motion to Dismiss
{¶ 35} OPERS asserts Haydocy’s petition should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

1. Standard of Review for Motion to Dismiss Under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
{¶ 36} A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is
procedural and tests the sufficiency of the petition or complaint itself and any attached
documents. State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545
(1992), citing Assn. for Defense of Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d
116, 117 (1989). Attachments to the complaint are considered part of the complaint for all
purposes. Civ.R. 10(C). Generally, in ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, a court “ ‘cannot
resort to evidence outside the complaint to support dismissal [except] where certain written
instruments are attached to the complaint.’ ” Brisk v. Draf Indus., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-233,
2012-Ohio-1311, ¶ 10, quoting Park v. Acierno, 160 Ohio App.3d 117, 2005-Ohio-1332, ¶ 29
(7th Dist.).
{¶ 37} A court must presume all factual allegations contained in the complaint to be
true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Red Foot Racing
Stables v. Polhamus, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-390, 2020-Ohio-592, ¶ 11, citing State ex rel.
Turner v. Houk, 112 Ohio St.3d 561, 2007-Ohio-814, ¶ 5. “Before the court may dismiss the
complaint, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts entitling the plaintiff to recovery.” Jones v. Dann, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-352,
2009-Ohio-5976, ¶ 9, citing O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio
St.2d 242 (1975), syllabus. Provided there is a set of facts, consistent with the complaint,
under which the complaining party could recover, a court may not grant a motion to dismiss
No. 24AP-432 11

for failure to state a claim. Prime Invests., LLC v. Altimate Care, LLC, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-
526, 2022-Ohio-1181, ¶ 23, citing York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 145
(1991). However, a court need not accept as true any unsupported and conclusory legal
propositions presented in the complaint. Bullard v. McDonald’s, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-374,
2021-Ohio-1505, ¶ 11, citing Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co. LPA, 183 Ohio App.3d
40, 2009-Ohio-2665, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 38} “ ‘A complaint in mandamus states a claim if it alleges the existence of the
legal duty and the want of an adequate remedy at law with sufficient particularity so that
the respondent is given reasonable notice of the claim asserted.’ ” Hanson at 548, quoting
State ex rel. Alford v. Willoughby Civ. Serv. Comm., 58 Ohio St.2d 221, 224 (1979).
Creation of a legal duty enforceable in mandamus “is the distinct function of the legislative
branch of government.” State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 (1992). “A court in
a mandamus proceeding cannot create a duty where none exists.” State ex rel. Clough v.
Franklin Cty. Children Servs., 144 Ohio St.3d 83, 2015-Ohio-3425, ¶ 15.

2. The Petition Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
{¶ 39} In his petition, Haydocy alleges that he “became cognizant” of an OPERS
policy that “mandated the submission of a notarized form prior to the issuance of refunds
exceeding ten thousand dollars.” (Petition at 3.) Haydocy alleges that such “policy served
as the basis for the denial of Relator Haydocy’s request for a rollover of funds.” Id. Haydocy
claims OPERS was acting contrary to law by requiring him to submit a notarized form
before processing his rollover payment. (Petition at 4; Haydocy’s Aug. 14, 2024 Response
and Mot. for Summary Judg. at 5.) Accepting as true Haydocy’s allegation that OPERS
requires submission of a notarized form for the rollover payment that Haydocy seeks,
Haydocy cannot establish OPERS was under a clear legal duty to make the rollover payment
without requiring such submission.
{¶ 40} “The state retirement systems, including OPERS, are creatures of statute and
‘can only act in strict accordance with their enabling schemes.’ ” Poliseno v. Mitchell, 10th
Dist. No. 09AP-1002, 2010-Ohio-2615, ¶ 12, quoting Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emp. v.
School Emp. Retirement Sys., 10th Dist. No. 04AP-136, 2004-Ohio-7101, ¶ 23, citing State
ex rel. Horvath v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 83 Ohio St.3d 67, 74 (1998). OPERS is
established under and governed by R.C. Chapter 145. R.C. 145.03(A). For the public
No. 24AP-432 12

employees of the state and those local authorities named in R.C. 145.01, membership in the
system is compulsory upon being employed and continues as long as public employment
continues. R.C. 145.03(A). See also R.C. 145.01 (defining various terms as used in the
chapter).
{¶ 41} The public employees retirement board (“the board”) is responsible for the
general administration and management of OPERS through effectuation of
R.C. Chapter 145. R.C. 145.04. The board “is a trustee of funds belonging to public
employees, which it must keep or dispose of according to the law as promulgated by the
Legislature.” State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 119 Ohio App. 181, 184 (10th
Dist.1963). The board is under “a general duty to safeguard and prudently invest the funds
entrusted to it.” State ex rel. Tarrier v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 164 Ohio St.3d 137,
2021-Ohio-649, ¶ 21. See R.C. 145.11 (setting forth fiduciary responsibilities of the board).
The statutory scheme grants the board broad, discretionary authority to perform functions
as required for the proper execution of R.C. Chapter 145 and to adopt rules for the
administration of the retirement system. See R.C. 145.09 (mandating the board to “perform
other functions as required for the proper execution of this chapter,” and permitting the
board to “adopt rules in accordance with section 111.15 of the Revised Code for the proper
administration and management of this chapter”). See also Ohio Adm.Code 145-1-09
(reflecting the board’s granting of discretionary authority to its staff “to make
determinations required under Chapter 145. of the Revised Code, including, but not limited
to, membership, exemptions or exclusions from membership, earnable salary, benefits, and
employer reporting”); Poliseno at ¶ 20 (acknowledging “discretionary authority” granted
by R.C. 145.09 and Ohio Adm.Code 145-1-09).
{¶ 42} Pursuant to this authority, the board adopted rules, which are codified under
Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 145. Under Ohio Adm.Code 145-1-66, OPERS “may provide an
electronic medium to perform an action or notice and such medium shall constitute a form
provided or required by the system.” Another rule specifically allows the board to set the
manner by which a member may elect to have a rollover payment made to an eligible
retirement plan, such as a deferred compensation plan. Ohio Adm.Code 145-2-67(A)
(providing that “a distributee may elect, at the time and in the manner prescribed by the
board, to have any portion of an eligible rollover distribution paid directly to an eligible
No. 24AP-432 13

retirement plan specified by the distributee in a direct rollover” (Emphasis added.)). A
“direct rollover” is a “payment by the retirement system to the eligible retirement plan
specified by the distributee.” Ohio Adm.Code 145-2-67(B)(4). An eligible retirement plan
includes an “eligible deferred compensation plan” subject to certain specifications. Ohio
Adm.Code 145-2-67(B)(1)(b).
{¶ 43} Another rule affords OPERS the discretion to require that certain
information be provided by those seeking a benefit or payment. Ohio Adm.Code 145-2-70
(providing that “[r]ecipients of a benefit or payment and alternate payees shall provide to
the retirement system * * * such other information as may be required by retirement
system”). OPERS also has the discretion to withhold the benefit or payment until the
required information is provided. Id. (providing that OPERS “may withhold a benefit or
payment until the benefit recipient or alternate payee provides the information” required).
{¶ 44} Thus, consistent with the broad authority granted by R.C. 145.09 and the
board’s fiduciary duty to safeguard the funds entrusted to it under R.C. 145.11, the board
adopted rules that specifically provide for withholding a payment until required
information—such as the notarized form at issue in this matter—has been provided by those
seeking the payment.1
{¶ 45} Nevertheless, Haydocy claims that under R.C. 145.40, OPERS is legally
bound to approve his application and disburse accumulated contributions without
requiring him to submit a notarized form. OPERS’s payment of funds to a member who
ceases to be a public employee is governed by R.C. 145.40. In pertinent part,
R.C. 145.40(A)(1) provides that “if a member * * * ceases to be a public employee,” except
for certain listed exceptions, “upon application the public employees retirement board shall
pay the member the member’s accumulated contributions” if more than two months have
elapsed since the member’s service terminated and the member did not return to service

1 Though not determinative of the question presented in this matter, it is noted that notarization serves an

important function by providing evidence of a person’s identity. See R.C. 147.53 (stating that a notary taking
an acknowledgment certifies that “[t]he person acknowledging was known to the person taking the
acknowledgment, or that the person taking the acknowledgment had satisfactory evidence that the person
acknowledging was the person described in and who executed the instrument”); Est. of Ortiz v. Cicconetti, 5th
Dist. No. 2023 CA 00129, 2024-Ohio-1958, ¶ 20 (“The core function of the notarial act is to authenticate the
signature in one manner or another. In this manner, it serves to thwart fraud by verifying that the person
purporting to convey a legal interest is indeed that person.”).
No. 24AP-432 14

during that two-month period. Haydocy points to Davis, 119 Ohio App. 181, to support his
argument.
{¶ 46} In Davis, an OPERS member filed an application for refund of accumulated
contributions. Though the member had been laid off, the member’s supervisor refused to
certify that employment had been terminated. As a result, OPERS refused to approve and
process the application for refund because it determined the member had not ceased to be
a public employee, nor had his public service been terminated. In support of its refusal,
OPERS pointed to a “policy to have the director of the employing agency certify that the
employment has been terminated before a payment of contributions is made to a separated
employee.” Davis at 182. The court rejected this argument, stating that “[w]hile this could
well be the policy of the retirement system, there has been no showing that such a
certification is required by a duly adopted rule or regulation, or by any of the statutes of
the state of Ohio under which the system operates.” (Emphasis added.) Id.
{¶ 47} Unlike in Davis, the above-discussed administrative rules specifically provide
for OPERS to require the disclosure of information, such as the notarized form at issue in
this matter, prior to making a rollover payment. Haydocy also does not allege that OPERS
is requiring the director of the employing agency to certify Haydocy’s termination or end of
service from before processing the rollover request. Davis is inapposite to this matter.
{¶ 48} Moreover, the plain text of R.C. 145.40 does not prevent OPERS from
requiring the submission of a notarized form prior to making a rollover payment. Though
R.C. 145.40 provides that a payment can only be made “upon application,” it is silent as to
the form of the application. In the absence of a more specific provision, the general
authority granted to the board under R.C. 145.09, in accordance with the board’s fiduciary
duties imposed by R.C. 145.11, controls. In short, R.C. Chapter 145 does not impose upon
OPERS a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief by making a rollover payment at a
member’s request without requiring, as part of the application process, that the member
complete and submit a notarized form. See Tarrier, 2021-Ohio-649, at ¶ 21. Presuming all
factual allegations contained in the petition to be true and making all reasonable inferences
in favor of Haydocy, as the nonmoving party, it appears beyond doubt from the petition
that Haydocy can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery in this mandamus action.
No. 24AP-432 15

C. Conclusion
{¶ 49} Because Haydocy cannot show a clear legal right to the requested relief or
that OPERS was under a clear legal duty to provide it, he cannot establish entitlement to a
writ of mandamus. Therefore, it is the decision and recommendation of the magistrate that
OPERS’s motion to dismiss should be granted. Accordingly, Haydocy’s motion for
summary judgment and motion to expedite proceedings and for a prehearing telephone
conference are moot.

/S/ MAGISTRATE
JOSEPH E. WENGER IV

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as
error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or
legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects
to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b). A party may file written objections to the
magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the
decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11068397. Public record. Not legal advice.