State ex rel. GMS Mgt., Co., Inc. v. Lazzaro
2012 Ohio 3961
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- GMS filed a mandamus action against Berea Municipal Court magistrate Lazzaro and judge Comstock to bar applying Civ.R. 6(A) to three-day notices under R.C. 1923.04(A).
- GMS served a three-day notice Oct. 5, 2011, and began eviction Oct. 11, 2011; the tenant moved to dismiss claiming Civ.R. 6(A) excluded weekends from the three-day period.
- The trial court dismissed the underlying eviction based on Civ.R. 6(A)’s exclusion; GMS later obtained possession in a separate eviction action in November 2011.
- GMS argued Civ.R. 6(A) exclusion defeats the speedy remedy purpose of R.C. 1923 and should not apply to forcible entry and detainer actions.
- The court analyzed mandamus prerequisites, held mandamus is not a substitute for appeal, and weighed whether there is an adequate remedy at law or a live controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is mandamus proper to declare Civ.R. 6(A) inapplicable here? | GMS argues exclusion should not apply to 1923.04(A) notices and mandamus is proper. | Respondents contend mandamus is not appropriate to declare the rule inapplicable; appeal suffices. | Not proper; mandamus denied; appeal is adequate remedy. |
| Does GMS have an adequate remedy at law via appeal? | Appeal would not provide the speedy, complete relief sought and could not be a substitute for mandamus. | Appeal provides a plain remedy at law; mandamus is inappropriate where an appeal exists. | Adequate remedy at law via appeal; mandamus denied. |
| Is this proceeding a justiciable controversy requiring mandamus or moot? | Relief would clarify applicability to future forcible entry and detainer actions and continue beyond the underlying case. | No current case or controversy; anticipated future cases do not justify mandamus relief. | Not justiciable; no live controversy for mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Sheboy, 6 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983) (appeal adequate remedy; mandamus not available for anticipated issues)
- GMS Mgt. Co. v. Callahan, 45 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989) (Civ.R. 6(A) in eviction context; exclusion rule not automatically controlling)
- State ex rel. Libery Mills v. Locker, 22 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986) (mandamus not used to obtain declaratory relief; adequate remedies analysis)
- State ex rel. Beane v. Dayton, 112 Ohio St.3d 553 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007) (no mandamus for prospective declaratory judgments)
- Cullen v. State ex rel. City of Toledo, 105 Ohio St.545 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1922) (courts decide actual controversies, not hypothetical)
- State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy, 67 Ohio St.2d 342 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1981) (mandamus not used to remedy anticipated nonperformance)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1964) (discretion in granting mandamus; weigh exigency and harm)