State ex rel. Huntington Natl. Bank v. Kontos (Slip Opinion), 47 N.E.3d 133

Background

In 2006 James sued Sky Bank (now Huntington) for breach of contract arising from improper disbursement of construction-loan funds; trial court (Judge Kontos) awarded damages in 2010.
The court of appeals reversed as to the proper standard for calculating damages and remanded for recalculation, explaining damages must be proven to a reasonable certainty and measured as the difference between funds improperly released and the actual value of the contractor’s work.
On remand Judge Kontos reviewed the record and concluded the existing evidence was insufficient to apply the appellate standard, and he ordered an additional evidentiary hearing before a magistrate to determine damages.
Huntington filed a petition for writs of prohibition and procedendo in the court of appeals (and a notice of appeal from the remand-order); the court of appeals dismissed the petition, finding appeal was an adequate remedy and the trial court did not lack jurisdiction.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: Huntington has an adequate remedy by appeal and Judge Kontos did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to hold an evidentiary hearing or to consider new evidence on damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Huntington)	Defendant's Argument (Judge Kontos / Respondent)	Held
Whether a writ of procedendo is warranted to force the trial court to enter judgment for Huntington rather than hold an evidentiary hearing	Remand limited the trial court to the existing record; because record lacks evidence to support damages, trial court must enter judgment for Huntington	Appeal is an adequate remedy; trial court may conduct proceedings necessary to comply with remand	Denied — appeal is an adequate remedy; procedendo inappropriate
Whether a writ of prohibition should prevent the trial court from conducting a new evidentiary hearing	The trial court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to take new evidence because the court of appeals ordered recalculation from the existing record only	The remand permitted further proceedings to correct evidentiary deficiencies; trial court has authority to determine how to comply	Denied — no patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; prohibition inappropriate
Proper scope of a remand when appellate opinion finds record insufficient to calculate damages under newly articulated standard	Remand confined the trial court strictly to the existing record; no additional evidence allowed	Remand for "further proceedings consistent with this opinion" permits the trial court to remedy record deficiencies, including hearings and additional evidence	Held that remand language was ambiguous and trial court could hold an evidentiary hearing to comply with mandate
Whether extraordinary relief is available when an adequate remedy by appeal exists	Extraordinary relief is justified because jurisdiction is lacking and harm would be irreparable	An appeal from the final post-remand order provides an adequate remedy absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction	Held that appeal is adequate; extraordinary relief withheld unless jurisdictional defect is patent and unambiguous

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (standards for procedendo)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (1995) (procedendo for refusal or delay to enter judgment)
State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012) (elements for prohibition and adequacy of remedy)
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204 (2013) (patent-and-unambiguous-jurisdictional rule for prohibition)
State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, 135 Ohio St.3d 175 (2013) (appeal as adequate remedy bars prohibition)
State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998) (prohibition when lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous)
State ex rel. Skyway Invest. Corp. v. Ashtabula Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 130 Ohio St.3d 220 (2011) (appeal precludes prohibition absent clear jurisdictional defect)
State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (2014) (appeal as adequate remedy precluding procedendo)