2022 Ohio 2556
Ohio2022Background
- Two related cases (divorce and a domestic-violence civil-protection-order) were filed May 31, 2017, in Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court and remained pending for years with more than 75 motions outstanding.
- Multiple judges recused over time; visiting judges were assigned, including Judge David Stucki (who recused after not ruling on pending motions) and later Judge Reeve W. Kelsey.
- Significant proceedings include an incomplete DVCPO hearing (July 2020) and long-unruled motions in the divorce case (including parenting-time and emergency temporary-custody motions filed in mid-2020).
- M.D. filed a procedendo action in the Eighth District Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling the domestic-relations court to rule on all pending motions and proceed to hearings/trial; the court of appeals dismissed the complaint.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found the delays excessive (far beyond the Rules of Superintendence timelines), reversed the court of appeals, and granted a writ directing Judge Kelsey to rule on pending motions, hold a full DVCPO hearing, decide parenting-time and emergency custody motions, and promptly proceed to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedendo is appropriate to remedy years-long delays | M.D.: court has refused/unnecessarily delayed entering judgment; >75 unresolved motions; cases pending since 2017 | Domestic-relations court: delays caused by multiple recusals and recent reassignment; not a refusal to proceed; argued mootness after reassignment | Writ granted — court had clear duty to proceed; delays were undue and procedendo appropriate |
| Whether multiple recusals excuse multi-year failure to rule | M.D.: recusals do not justify years of unresolved motions and denial of parenting time | Court: recusals explain delay and negate refusal to proceed | Recusals do not justify prolonged nonresolution; they do not bar issuance of writ |
| Role of Rules of Superintendence in assessing delay | M.D.: supersede rules (18 months for divorce with children; 1 month for DVCPO; 120 days to rule on motions) show undue delay | Court: litigants cannot directly enforce superintendence time limits via extraordinary writ | Rules are guiding benchmarks; exceeding them supports finding of undue delay and justifies writ, though time limits alone are not independently enforceable by writ |
| Mootness and effect of judge reassignment after filing procedendo | M.D.: alleged Kelsey had ruled only on one motion and many remained; asked to supplement complaint | Court/domestic-relations: assignment of Judge Kelsey rendered action moot | Court substituted Judge Kelsey as respondent and denied mootness — still granted relief directing Kelsey to act |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor, 164 Ohio St.3d 144 (de novo review of dismissal of writ action)
- State ex rel. Poulton v. Cottrill, 147 Ohio St.3d 402 (procedendo appropriate when court refuses or unnecessarily delays entering judgment)
- State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (elements for extraordinary writ: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Rodak v. Betleski, 104 Ohio St.3d 345 (procedendo remedies a court's failure to timely dispose of an action)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436 (superintendence rules guide timeliness; >120 days to rule on motions risks writs)