Owens Community College accuses former employee Michael S. Martin of fraudulent tuition benefit claims

Owens Community College has found itself embroiled in a legal battle over tuition reimbursements, as it challenges a court’s dismissal of its collection action against a former employee. The appeal was filed by Owens Community College on February 13, 2026, in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, Wood County, against Michael S. Martin.

The case stems from an incident where Michael Martin, an Army veteran and former part-time employee at Owens Community College, was terminated for allegedly “fraudulently reporting tuition and fees cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs.” This accusation arose after the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) informed Owens that Martin had received free tuition from the college while also receiving benefits under the Post 9/11 GI Bill for the Summer and Fall sessions of 2018. Consequently, Owens reimbursed the VA for these funds and sought reimbursement from Martin through letters sent in August 2020. After no response from Martin, Owens certified the debt to the Ohio Attorney General (OAG) on August 20, 2021. The OAG subsequently filed a complaint on behalf of Owens in March 2024.

Martin did not initially respond to this complaint but later appeared pro se and eventually obtained counsel to file a motion to vacate the default judgment granted in favor of Owens. He counterclaimed that Owens’ claim was time-barred under R.C. 131.02 and alleged breach of employment agreement and violations under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act due to improper fees charged during his enrollment at Owens.

In response to Martin’s counterclaim seeking damages up to $15,000 plus attorney fees and costs, Owens filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction over damages claims against the state per R.C. 2743.01(A). The trial court initially dismissed Martin’s counterclaim but later reinstated it conditionally for potential removal to the Court of Claims—a step Martin did not pursue further.

Owens argues that their certification of debt was wrongly interpreted as exceeding a supposed statute of limitations by more than 45 days post-due date according to R.C. 131.02(A). They assert that this provision is directory rather than mandatory—meaning non-compliance does not invalidate their claim—and that no clear due date was established by statutory definitions.

Ultimately, the appellate court found merit in Owens’ argument regarding procedural misinterpretations related to statutory timelines and jurisdictional issues surrounding Martin’s counterclaim handling. Thus, they reversed and vacated previous judgments dismissing Owens’ collection action while remanding for further proceedings consistent with their findings.

Representing parties include Dave Yost as Ohio Attorney General with Katherine A. Szudy assisting for appellant Owens Community College; Taylor R. Ward represents appellee Michael S. Martin. Judges involved are Christine E. Mayle, Gene A. Zmuda, and Myron C. Duhart with Case ID: {87}WD-25-032.