State ex rel. Luoma v. Russo (Slip Opinion), 141 Ohio St. 3d 53

Luoma filed a partition action with a stipulation for a decree of partition; a commissioner valued the property at $67,000 and found it indivisible without injury.
The magistrate issued a decision reallocating proceeds to reimburse one party for disproportionate investment.
Judge Russo overruled Luoma’s objections and affirmed the magistrate’s decision on November 14, 2012; a judgment entry followed.
Luoma sought a final, appealable order on December 11, 2012; Judge Russo denied this request on December 13, 2012.
Final judgment followed on December 31, 2012 imposing a sheriff’s sale and distribution terms; Luoma did not appeal this order.
Luoma petitioned for mandamus in the Eighth District seeking a writ to compel a final order; the court denied relief, and the case progressed to this Supreme Court review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is available where an adequate remedy by appeal exists	Luoma contends mandamus is appropriate due to the need for a final, appealable order on the magistrate’s adoption.	Russo argues Luoma had an adequate remedy by appeal and mandamus is inappropriate.	Writ denied; adequate remedy by appeal precludes mandamus.

Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012-Ohio-69) (mandamus requires a clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (existence of an adequate remedy by appeal defeats mandamus)
In re Zinni, 2008-Ohio-581 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89599) (partition-order finality requires a separate judgment for appeal)