Lee v. George
2012 Ky. LEXIS 89
| Ky. | 2012Background
- This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals’ denial of a writ of mandamus or prohibition in a divorce case.
- Judge George presided over custody, parenting time, and property trials; the guardian ad litem and opposing counsel were also challenged.
- Appellant, self-represented, filed numerous motions; the trial court imposed a $7,500 bond before further motions would be heard.
- The Court of Appeals held bias, fraud, and conspiracy claims to be reviewable on direct appeal and affirmed on bond grounds.
- This Court affirms the Court of Appeals on the bond issue but discusses other grounds for potential relief and cautions about pre-filing restrictions.
- The May 2011 order requiring the bond remained in effect, addressing continued filings by Appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition shows first-class jurisdictional excess. | Lee contends Judge George acted outside jurisdiction due to bias. | George acted within jurisdiction; bias does not render outside jurisdiction. | No; trial court acted within jurisdiction. |
| Whether the bond order precludes writ relief. | Bond unjust, burdens access to courts, indicating bias. | Bond reasonably limits frivolous filings without denying access. | Bond order not voided; writ denied on bond grounds. |
| Whether irreparable injury or inadequate remedy by appeal justifies a writ. | Delays in appeals injure Lee’s custody rights; writ needed. | Delays do not constitute irreparable injury; writ not appropriate. | No irreparable injury; writ not warranted absent special case. |
| Whether the bond issue falls within a “special case” permitting extraordinary relief. | Bond creates substantial miscarriage of justice and access issues. | Special-case relief not established; ordinary appellate remedy suffices. | Not a proper special-case basis for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoskins v. Maride, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2004) (subject-matter of jurisdiction and extraordinary relief standards)
- Independent Order of Foresters v. Chauvin, 175 S.W.3d 610 (Ky.2005) (great injustice not required; special-case framework for writs)
- Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky.1961) (special-cases and remedy-by-appeal framework)
- Buckley v. Wilson, 177 S.W.3d 778 (Ky.2005) (delays in appeal do not constitute irreparable injury)
- In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) (post-filing sanctions; pre-filing restrictions require caution)
- In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (dissent on pre-filing restrictions; access concerns)
- Collins v. Combs, 320 S.W.3d 669 (Ky.2010) (access to courts; balancing safety and filing rights)
- Lattanzio v. Joyce, 308 S.W.3d 723 (Ky.App.2010) (importance of access to counsel and self-representation)