Columbus Checkcashers, Inc. v. Guttermaster, Inc., 2013 Ohio 5543

Columbus Checkcashers sued Guttermaster on a dishonored check; the complaint referenced R.C. 1303.54 but misstates the applicable statutes.
Guttermaster fired Willis, who allegedly stole the check after dismissal from Guttermaster; Guttermaster sought cross-claims for contribution and trespass.
Columbus Checkcashers voluntarily dismissed the first case under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) on June 8, 2011, but the trial court was unaware, leading to a dismissal with prejudice when the case was called for trial.
Affidavits of disqualification were filed against the trial judge in both cases (Aug/Sep 2011); the clerk failed to follow RC 2701.031(C)(1) by notifying the presiding judge.
The trial court held a December 2, 2011 hearing on sanctions and a separate motion to compel, and proceeded with trial in the second case despite pending disqualification.
May 24, 2012 and November 29, 2012 transfers/entries involved the presiding judge reviewing the affidavits; the second case record was reviewed without a ruling on the second affidavit, affecting jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did affidavits of disqualification divest the judge of jurisdiction?	Affidavits automatically deprived the judge of authority to proceed.	Ministerial acts may proceed; some rulings could be made pending disposition.	The court held the second case lacked jurisdiction; the first case's judgment was valid to extent of ministerial acts.
Did the December 2, 2011 hearing and trial occur with proper jurisdiction?	Hearing/trial occurred despite unresolved disqualification; jurisdiction was lacking.	The hearing was ministerial and within judicial authority to address sanctions.	The first case hearing was ministerial and did not invalidate the judgment; the second case lacked jurisdiction for trial.
Is the January 10, 2013 judgment in the second case valid?	Jurisdiction was not properly obtained; judgment should be void.	Disqualification ruling eventually denied; trial proceeded with authority.	The second case judgment is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction; it is reversed.
Did due process require recusal rulings to be properly issued before decisions?	Procedural due process requires proper disqualification adjudication.	Procedures adequate; no fundamental due process violation shown.	Due process procedures were not violated as described; some issues sustained.

State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335 (2002) (affidavit of disqualification divests a judge of jurisdiction pending ruling)
State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio, 81 Ohio St.3d 297 (1998) (trial judge cannot proceed after affidavit; orders may be void)
Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (ministerial acts exception to prohibition on proceeding during disqualification)