Beers v. Falkowski, 2017 Ohio 4380

Thomas P. Beers and Shannon Beers divorced after trial; final divorce decree entered April 18, 2016; no appeal was filed from that decree.
Shannon filed a motion to show cause for contempt based on nonpayment; trial court set a hearing for March 20, 2017.
On March 20, 2017, Beers filed an original action for a writ of prohibition to stop the trial court from proceeding; the hearing nevertheless went forward.
Magistrate issued a decision on April 6, 2017 finding Beers in civil contempt for nonpayment of $7,435.03 and imposing purge conditions.
Beers filed objections to the magistrate’s decision and an amended prohibition petition; the trial court/respondents moved to dismiss the prohibition petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
The appellate court evaluated whether prohibition was appropriate given available remedies and whether any jurisdictional defect was patent and unambiguous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of prohibition should prevent the trial court from holding/continuing the contempt hearing	Beers argued the trial court lacked authority to proceed and the hearing/judgment should be enjoined	Respondents asserted the court had jurisdiction and that Beers had not stated a claim for prohibition; an adequate remedy (appeal) exists	Denied — jurisdictional defect not patent; adequate remedy by appeal exists, so prohibition inappropriate
Whether the alleged jurisdictional defect was patent and unambiguous	Beers contended the defect was clear enough to warrant extraordinary relief	Respondents argued subject-matter jurisdiction exists generally in common pleas domestic cases; any defect depends on facts	Held not patent or unambiguous; court should be allowed to decide contested jurisdictional facts
Whether the availability of appeal defeats extraordinary relief by prohibition	Beers argued prohibition was necessary to prevent irreparable harm from enforcement	Respondents argued an appeal from a final judgment is an adequate remedy at law	Held an appeal provides an adequate remedy; prohibition is not warranted
Whether the petition stated a claim upon which relief can be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)	Beers maintained his petition sufficiently alleged grounds for prohibition	Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim	Held petition dismissed for failure to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief

State ex rel. Florence v. Zitter, 106 Ohio St.3d 87 (2005) (standard for issuing a writ of prohibition; extraordinary remedy and adequate remedy requirement)
State ex rel. Sliwinski v. Unruh, 118 Ohio St.3d 76 (2008) (writ of prohibition prerequisites reaffirmed)
State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998) (describing prohibition as an extraordinary remedy restraining inferior courts)