State ex rel. Kirin v. Krichbaum
2016 Ohio 887
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Relator Victor J. Kirin, Jr. filed an original action in mandamus after Judge R. Scott Krichbaum entered a decree of foreclosure against him in Mahoning C.P. No. 2014 CV 02075 and overruled his motion for new trial.
- Kirin did not appeal the foreclosure decree or the denial of his motion for new trial.
- Kirin alleges foreclosure counsel submitted fraudulent assignments of the note/mortgage, thereby perpetrating a fraud on the trial court.
- He asks this court to declare the trial-court orders void, halt foreclosures/sheriff’s sales county-wide pending investigation, require notice to prior defendants about fraudulent assignments, and permit him to appear to press criminal charges.
- Respondent moved for judgment on the pleadings; the court evaluated entitlement to mandamus and alternative remedies (appeal, Civ.R. 60(B), R.C. 2701.03 disqualification procedure, R.C. 2935.09(D) for citizen-initiated criminal referrals).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of mandamus to undo foreclosure judgment | Kirin contends the decree was void because it was procured by fraudulent assignments and requests mandamus relief | Judge argues mandamus inappropriate because adequate legal remedies (appeal or Civ.R. 60(B)) exist | Mandamus denied: Relator has adequate remedies at law (appeal; Civ.R. 60(B)(3)) |
| Challenge to judge’s impartiality | Kirin implies Respondent was biased and shouldn’t have presided | Judge asserts disqualification claims must proceed under R.C. 2701.03 to Ohio Supreme Court | Court lacks jurisdiction to disqualify trial judges; R.C. 2701.03 is exclusive remedy |
| Seeking county-wide injunction and relief for other litigants | Kirin asks court to halt all Mahoning County foreclosures and notify prior defendants of fraud | Judge contends relator lacks standing to obtain relief for nonparties | Denied: relator lacks standing to represent or obtain relief on behalf of others |
| Request to initiate criminal proceedings | Kirin asks court to enable criminal prosecutions for alleged fraud | Judge notes criminal referral mechanism exists for private citizens under R.C. 2935.09(D) | Court declined to initiate criminal prosecution; relator may pursue statutory citizen-complaint process |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Brown v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections, 142 Ohio St.3d 370 (mandamus is extraordinary and granted cautiously)
- State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153 (elements required for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Middletown Bd. of Edn. v. Butler Cty. Budget Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 251 (mandamus will not lie where an adequate remedy by appeal exists)
- State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan, 75 Ohio St.3d 12 (Civ.R. 60(B)(3) is the remedy for fraud on the court)
- Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440 (only Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice or designee may rule on trial-judge disqualification under R.C. 2701.03)