State ex rel. Huntington Natl. Bank v. Kontos, 2014 Ohio 1374

In 2006 W. Thomas James and related plaintiffs sued Sky Bank (now Huntington) and others over a construction‑loan dispute; the trial court entered judgment for James against the bank for breach of contract.
Huntington appealed; this court reversed and remanded in James v. Sky Bank, directing the trial court to apply a particular measure of damages (difference between funds improperly released and the actual value of work) and to recalculate damages based on the record.
On remand the trial court (Judge Kontos) reviewed the record, concluded it could not apply the appellate court’s damages measure without additional testimony, and ordered an evidentiary hearing on damages before the magistrate.
Huntington filed a petition for writs of prohibition and procedendo seeking to (1) prohibit the trial court from holding a new damages hearing and (2) compel the trial court to enter judgment for Huntington. Huntington also filed a nonfinal appeal that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellate court granted the trial judge’s motion to dismiss the extraordinary‑writ petition and denied both writs: prohibition failed because the court’s exercise of authority on remand was not clearly unauthorized and adequate remedies (appeal from a final judgment) exist; procedendo failed because Huntington had no clear right to a specific judgment and an adequate remedy by appeal exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of prohibition should bar the trial court from conducting an evidentiary hearing on damages	Huntington: The remand required the trial court to decide damages from the existing record only; any new hearing exceeds the trial court’s authority	Judge Kontos: The trial court may, consistent with Civ.R. 53, take additional evidence on remand and refer matters to the magistrate	Denied — prohibition not warranted because the jurisdictional defect was not patent; trial court had authority to take additional evidence and Huntington has an adequate remedy by appeal from a final judgment
Whether a writ of procedendo may compel the trial court to enter judgment for Huntington	Huntington: The court should be ordered to enter judgment for the bank now	Judge Kontos: Procedendo cannot force a specific outcome; the remand required recalculation of damages, not entry of judgment for Huntington	Denied — procedendo unavailable because Huntington has no clear right to a specific judgment, the court has no clear duty to enter judgment for Huntington, and an adequate remedy (appeal) exists

Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (describes law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
Yee v. Erie County Sheriff’s Department, 51 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 1990) (procedendo is an order to proceed to judgment, not to a particular result)
Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96 (Ohio 1937) (historical explanation of procedendo)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (Ohio 1995) (procedendo standards)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (Ohio 1995) (procedendo for refusal or undue delay to enter judgment)
State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1998) (scope of prohibition writ)
State ex rel. New Concept Housing, Inc. v. Metz, 123 Ohio St.3d 457 (Ohio 2009) (appeal is an adequate remedy preventing procedendo)