2019 Ohio 2622
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Relator Raymond L. Eichenberger sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District asking Judge Terri B. Jamison (Franklin C.P., Domestic Relations) to: (a) rule on matters following a remand in his divorce case and (b) return a $3,500 cash appeal bond.
- The divorce decree was entered September 7, 2016; this court reversed on asset-division issues and remanded (Irvin v. Eichenberger). The Ohio Supreme Court declined discretionary review.
- Relator filed the mandamus complaint on February 19, 2019 and sought an emergency stay of trial-court proceedings.
- The magistrate took judicial notice of subsequent trial-court scheduling: the trial court set hearings and ultimately scheduled a May 8, 2019 hearing to address the remand and the bond issue.
- The magistrate sua sponte recommended dismissal as moot because the trial court had begun to act on the matters relator sought to compel; the Tenth District adopted the magistrate’s decision (with modifications) and denied the requested writ in part and found part moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a mandamus action divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed | Eichenberger: filing mandamus (a quasi-appeal) and seeking a stay automatically divests trial court of jurisdiction; trial court should not proceed | Respondents: filing an original action in the appellate court does not divest the trial court unless a stay is granted; trial court retained jurisdiction | Court: Mandamus filing does not automatically divest trial court; trial court had jurisdiction and could act |
| Whether the mandamus claim is moot because the trial court acted while mandamus was pending | Eichenberger: relief still needed; trial court proceedings should have been stayed | Respondents: trial court has since acted (set hearings/ruled), so requested act either completed or an adequate remedy exists | Court: Claim moot in part (requested rulings performed); writ denied in part where adequate remedy exists |
| Whether relator was entitled to an emergency stay from this court | Eichenberger: emergency stay requested to prevent trial-court action while mandamus pending | Respondents: no stay granted; trial court jurisdiction remains absent a stay | Court: denied emergency stay and denied reconsideration |
| Whether relator is entitled to fees/costs for pursuing the mandamus | Eichenberger: seeks attorney fees and costs incurred in mandamus | Respondents: relief predicated on obtaining writ; no writ, so no fees | Court: motion for fees denied (no writ obtained) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (Ohio 1978) (general rule on trial-court jurisdiction after appeal)
- State ex rel. Rock v. School Employees Retirement Bd., 96 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 2002) (appeal divests trial judge of jurisdiction over matters before appellate court)
- State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 Ohio St.3d 304 (Ohio 2005) (mandamus moot where trial court performed the requested act while petition pending)
- State ex rel. Natl. City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 2004) (mandamus will not lie to compel an act already performed)
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (elements required for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2003) (mandamus/procedendo appropriate for refusal or undue delay in rendering judgment)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (Ohio 1995) (mandamus remedy for undue delay)
- State ex rel. Graham v. Niemeyer, 106 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 2005) (writ will not issue for duties already performed)