State ex rel. Adkins v. Shanahan
132 Ohio St. 3d 519
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Adkins appellants seek writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Shanahan from exercising further jurisdiction in Smith v. Adkins, M.C. No. 10CV12756.
- The underlying suit involved a secured-debt claim; bankruptcy discharge (11 U.S.C. 727) is not a blanket bar to such claims.
- Appellants argue discharge precludes the municipal case.
- Appellants contend the bankruptcy discharge barred the action and that the court lacked jurisdiction.
- There is evidence of an ongoing relationship between the parties after the discharge, and the parties may have waived the discharge defense by not raising it in the municipal case.
- The court of appeals dismissed the prohibition claim, holding there was no patently and unambiguously lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Shanahan patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction | Adkins argues discharge bars case | Shanahan can exercise jurisdiction; discharge not dispositive | No patent lack of jurisdiction; dismissal upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012-Ohio-54) (jurisdiction may be determined on appeal if there is no patent lack of jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 111 (2010-Ohio-2467) (court’s jurisdiction concerns in prohibition limited to patent lack)
- Fountain Skin Care v. Hernandez, 175 Ohio App.3d 93 (2008-Ohio-489) (affirmative defenses waived if not raised in pleadings or amendments)