State ex rel. Hunter v. Goldberg, 2024 Ohio 4970

Michelle Hunter filed for divorce in 2020, and in December 2023, the trial court entered a final judgment, ordering her to sell her residence and pay significant attorney fees to her ex-husband.
Hunter promptly appealed the judgment and sought a stay of execution (to halt enforcement of the judgment) in both the trial court and the Eighth District Court of Appeals by proposing to post a bond corresponding to the attorney fee award.
In both the trial court and appellate court, her motions for a stay were denied; notably, Hunter never actually posted the proposed bond, only moved to do so if approved.
Hunter then filed for a writ of mandamus and, alternatively, a writ of supersedeas in the Ohio Supreme Court, asking the courts to compel the stay pending her appeal, conditioned on her ability to post a bond.
The Supreme Court initially granted a temporary stay to preserve the status quo, then directed further briefing and evidence.
The procedural question centered on the mechanics and requirements for obtaining a stay of judgment pending appeal under Ohio law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to Stay on Posting Bond	Hunter: Entitled to a stay by right if an adequate bond is posted under Civ.R. 62(B)/App.R. 7.	Defendants: Courts have discretion to deny stay; Hunter failed to post a bond for consideration.	Hunter is not entitled to the stay because she never posted the bond; rule does not require courts to predetermine bond suitability.
Duty to Grant Mandamus	Mandamus should issue to compel the courts to grant stay upon posting a court-approved bond.	No clear legal duty exists absent posting and approval of the bond.	No clear legal right or duty exists; mandamus denied.
Writ of Supersedeas	Court should grant a rare writ of supersedeas to stay enforcement pending appeal.	Writ not warranted; insufficient grounds and lack of legal authority or argument.	Writ of supersedeas denied for lack of developed argument/grant of right.
Approval and Timing of Bond	Court must set and approve bond before stay; timing is up to procedural rules.	No procedural requirement for court to pre-approve bond before posting.	No requirement for bond approval in advance; the process is clear: post bond, then seek approval.

State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 141 Ohio St.3d 384 (mandamus elements in Ohio)
State ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl, 87 Ohio St.3d 568 (mandamus may not control judicial discretion except in certain circumstances)
Mason City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 138 (undeveloped legal arguments do not merit relief)