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

[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 magis