State ex rel. Mancino v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7528

In 1999, Judge Thomakos in Tuscarawas County ordered $37,500 that Samuel Geneva had transferred to attorney Paul Mancino returned to Geneva’s bank account and enjoined removal of the funds.
Geneva died in 2014; the probate court in 2015 determined the estate owned any remainder of the $37,500 and directed executor James Weaver to recover the asset.
In 2016 Weaver filed a motion in the original civil case seeking a show-cause order/ contempt proceeding against Mancino for allegedly failing to comply with the 1999 orders; the trial court set a show-cause hearing.
Mancino filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals to prevent the contempt hearing, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction (personal and subject-matter) and that Weaver lacked standing.
The court of appeals dismissed Mancino’s petition (treated by the Supreme Court as a judgment on the pleadings), holding the common pleas court had jurisdiction and Mancino had an adequate remedy by appeal; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Mancino's Argument	Appellees' Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction over contempt	Court lacked authority to punish Mancino because he was not a party to the original civil action	Common pleas courts have statutory and inherent power to punish contempt for disobedience of their orders	Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; contempt power exists
Personal jurisdiction over attorney	Mancino not subject to contempt because he was not a party and allegedly lacked notice in 1999	Courts have personal jurisdiction over attorneys who practice before them and are counsel of record	Trial court had personal jurisdiction over Mancino as counsel; not an extreme due-process defect
Validity of 1999 orders (due-process challenge)	1999 orders invalid because Mancino received little or no notice and no opportunity to be heard	Any due-process challenge can be raised as a defense or on appeal from the contempt proceeding	Due-process argument does not show patent, unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; may be litigated in contempt proceedings or on appeal
Standing to file show-cause motion	Weaver lacked a personal stake to pursue contempt	Probate court had ordered the executor (Weaver) to recover whatever remains of the $37,500; executor thus has stake	Weaver had standing as executor to seek recovery and enforce the asset order

State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 40 N.E.3d 1138 (Ohio 2015) (elements required for writ of prohibition)
State ex rel. V.K.B. v. Smith, 3 N.E.3d 1184 (Ohio 2013) (writ may issue where lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous)
State ex rel. Mancino v. Campbell, 611 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio 1993) (courts' power to punish disobedience of orders with contempt)
Zakany v. Zakany, 459 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio) (recognizing contempt power in family-law context)
State ex rel. Suburban Constr. Co. v. Skok, 710 N.E.2d 710 (Ohio 1999) (writ for lack of personal jurisdiction is extremely rare)
Fraiberg v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 667 N.E.2d 1189 (Ohio) (due-process standard for personal-jurisdiction challenges)
State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 664 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio) (standards for judgment on the pleadings)