2021 Ohio 4171
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- M.D. (husband/relator) and M.A.D. (wife) married 1998; two children (2006, 2010). Wife lived in Ohio; husband lived and worked in Texas.
- Wife filed for divorce and a Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (DVCPO) in May 2017; magistrate initially granted a protection order at an August 2017 hearing.
- Trial judge vacated the magistrate’s protection order for procedural insufficiency; this court reversed and remanded for a new full hearing in 2018.
- The case experienced heavy recusal activity: six Domestic Relations judges recused over time, producing long delays and a backlog of roughly 100 pending motions.
- Relator filed this procedendo action (Aug. 6, 2021) seeking court orders to proceed, rule on motions (including a May 28, 2021 motion to dismiss), hold hearings, and rule on parenting-time and temporary-possession motions; a new judge was assigned and set conferences/trial dates before resolution of the procedendo petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.D.) | Defendant's Argument (Domestic Relations Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of procedendo should compel the court to proceed to judgment in the DVCPO and related family cases | Cases have been pending >4 years with ~100 unresolved motions; delay harms M.D., denies visitation, and perpetuates DVCPO accusation; court should be compelled to act | A new judge was recently assigned and has taken steps (attorney conference, trial date); court is not refusing or unduly delaying judgment | Denied — procedendo not appropriate because the court is not refusing to proceed and a new judge is actively managing the case |
| Whether procedendo can force the court to rule on specific motions now (e.g., May 28, 2021 motion to dismiss) | Court should be compelled to rule on outstanding motions to end delay and prejudice | Granting writ to force specific rulings would improperly control judges’ procedural discretion | Denied — procedendo cannot be used to direct how or when a judge exercises discretionary case management |
| Whether procedural recusal/delay constitutes unreasonable delay warranting procedendo relief | Ongoing recusals and backlog amount to unreasonable delay justifying extraordinary relief | Recusals were legitimate; assignment of a new judge and scheduling actions show the court is addressing the matters | Denied — recusals and reassignment do not show refusal to proceed; relief premature while new judge is acting |
| Whether an adequate legal remedy exists precluding procedendo | M.D. contends delay leaves no adequate remedy and requires writ | Court argues customary remedies and continued proceedings under new judge are adequate; procedendo is not for controlling outcome or routine case management | Denied — procedendo will not issue when adequate remedies exist or to control ordinary court procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Yee v. Erie Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43 (defines procedendo as an order to proceed to judgment)
- State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532 (procedendo appropriate for refusal or unreasonable delay)
- State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597 (procedendo will not control judicial discretion or ordinary court procedure)