Salloum v. Falkowski (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8722

In 2010 Florida granted a dissolution of marriage for Georges Salloum and Noelle Salloum and ordered child support for their minor child, J.S.
Noelle and the child later moved to Lake County, Ohio. In January 2014 the Florida court approved a joint stipulation to transfer venue to Lake County, Ohio.
Noelle registered the Florida decree in Ohio and filed a motion to modify child support in Lake County Domestic Relations Court.
Salloum moved to dismiss, arguing the Ohio court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; Judge Falkowski denied the motion under former R.C. 3115.48(A)(2) (now R.C. 3115.611(A)(2)).
Salloum sought a writ of prohibition from the Eleventh District Court of Appeals to stop the trial court from proceeding; the court of appeals denied the petition, finding jurisdiction under R.C. 3115.611(A)(2).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ, holding the trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to decide whether it had jurisdiction under R.C. 3115.611(A)(2), but criticized the appellate court for exceeding its scope by definitively ruling the stipulation conferred jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Ohio trial court had jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state child-support order after the parties filed a joint stipulation to transfer venue	Salloum: Ohio lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because he remained a Florida resident and the Ohio court could not assume continuing exclusive jurisdiction	Appellees: R.C. 3115.611(A)(2) permits an Ohio tribunal to modify a registered out-of-state support order when the child resides in Ohio and parties filed consents in the issuing tribunal	Court: Trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to determine whether R.C. 3115.611(A)(2) applied; prohibition denied
Whether the court of appeals exceeded its scope by definitively finding the stipulation conferred jurisdiction	Salloum: The appellate decision foreclosed later review and usurped fact-intensive determination	Appellees: Appellate finding that respondents had jurisdiction was proper	Court: Appellate court exceeded scope by definitively ruling the stipulation provided jurisdiction; appellate ruling on that factual/legal effect was premature

State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (2001) (writ of prohibition is extraordinary and granted with caution)
State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012) (elements required for a writ of prohibition)
State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle, 137 Ohio St.3d 568 (2013) (patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction removes need to show inadequate remedy)
State ex rel. Estate of Hards v. Klammer, 110 Ohio St.3d 104 (2006) (error in exercising jurisdiction differs from lack of jurisdiction)
Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489 (1997) (availability of postjudgment appeal as adequate remedy)
Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93 (1990) (reviewing court should not reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned)