Rocky River v. Bakos, 2015 Ohio 4366

In July 2013 Samuel Funk (legal guardian of Bakos’s three children) obtained an ex parte domestic violence protection order from Lorain County Common Pleas Court against Jolynn Bakos; the order protected Funk and his wife and barred Bakos from following, stalking, harassing them and coming within 500 feet.
At a full hearing in August 2013 the court found Bakos harassed/threatened Funk, found a history of violence, and extended the order for five years; the order applied only to Funk and his wife and added a prohibition on alcohol/drug use or possession.
In November 2013 Bakos was arrested in Rocky River for intoxication at the same facility where Funk was present; Rocky River charged Bakos with two counts of violating the Lorain County protection order (within 500 feet and alcohol use/possession).
Bakos moved to dismiss pretrial, arguing the underlying protection order was invalid because Funk and his wife were not “family or household members” under R.C. 3113.31; the municipal court denied the motion, and a jury convicted her on both counts.
The Eighth District reversed, holding the Lorain County court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 3113.31 because Funk did not reside with Bakos and was not a qualifying family/household member; a judgment rendered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void and subject to collateral attack, so the prosecution for violating the void order was a nullity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Lorain County protection order was valid under R.C. 3113.31	The City: Funk qualified as related by affinity (guardian of her children) so the statute covers him; order valid	Bakos: Funk and his wife were not "family or household members" because they never resided with her, so the statute did not apply and the order was void	The court held the order was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because R.C. 3113.31 requires a qualifying family/household relationship (residing with or having resided with the respondent) and record shows only neighbor relationship
Whether a conviction for violating a facially void protection order can stand	The City: collateral attack is untimely; prior precedents permit charging for violations of orders later found invalid	Bakos: Void judgments are not subject to waiver or res judicata and may be collaterally attacked at any time	The court held void judgments (for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) may be collaterally attacked and cannot support a prosecution; conviction reversed and vacated

Morris v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (1972) (subject-matter jurisdiction defines a court's power to render an enforceable judgment)
State v. Lomax, 96 Ohio St.3d 318 (2002) (a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction issues a void judgment that may be vacated at any time)