State ex rel. Maron v. Corrigan, 2022 Ohio 4406

Relator Jessica Maron is a defendant in a declaratory-judgment action filed Sept. 29, 2022 by United Twenty-Fifth Building, L.L.C. (United) in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas concerning alleged violations of a recorded easement at 2104 West 25th Street.
The West 25th property is alleged to be a marital asset in Maron’s pending divorce proceedings (filed Sept. 1, 2020) in the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court.
United’s complaint seeks declaratory relief, a preliminary injunction, and tort and contract remedies (trespass, breach, tortious interference) based on Maron’s alleged denial of contractor access required by the easement; United owns commercial parcels (A1, A2); Maron occupies residential parcels (B1–B3).
Maron filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Peter J. Corrigan (Common Pleas) from adjudicating United, arguing Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction because the property is a marital asset and the Domestic Relations Court’s earlier-filed divorce has jurisdictional priority.
The Eighth District denied the writ: it held the common pleas court has statutory jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment and injunctive actions and related tort/contract claims, the jurisdictional-priority rule did not apply because the causes/parties differ, and Maron has an adequate remedy by direct appeal. One judge dissented on the priority issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Common Pleas is patently and unambiguously without subject-matter jurisdiction to decide United’s claims involving allegedly marital property	Maron: Domestic Relations Court has exclusive authority over marital-asset issues; Common Pleas therefore lacks jurisdiction	Common Pleas: Statutory jurisdiction exists for declaratory judgment, injunctions, and related tort/contract claims; the dispute over an easement is within Common Pleas’ scope	Denied — Common Pleas has jurisdiction; not patently/unambiguously lacking
Whether the jurisdictional-priority rule bars Common Pleas because the divorce was filed first	Maron: Divorce court’s earlier invocation of jurisdiction excludes later Common Pleas action	United/Common Pleas: Priority applies only if the two actions involve the same cause of action and parties; here they differ	Denied — priority rule not applicable because causes/parties are not the same
Whether a writ of prohibition is the proper remedy	Maron: Prohibition needed to stop alleged jurisdictional overreach	Common Pleas/Respondent: Writ is extraordinary and only for patent lack of jurisdiction; otherwise appeal is adequate	Denied — no patent lack of jurisdiction; Maron has adequate remedy by direct appeal

State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160 (establishes elements for a writ of prohibition)
State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417 (writ issues only when a court is patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush, 39 Ohio St.3d 174 (if jurisdictional lack is patent, adequacy of other remedies is immaterial)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (definition of jurisdiction)
Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman, 157 Ohio St.3d 296 (common pleas subject-matter jurisdiction is defined by statute)
CNG Fin. Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149 (common pleas have statutory jurisdiction over declaratory and injunctive relief)
State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko, 135 Ohio St.3d 171 (explains the jurisdictional-priority rule)
State ex rel. Tri Eagle Fuels, L.L.C. v. Dawson, 157 Ohio St.3d 20 (priority applies only when causes of action are the same)
State ex rel. Rootstown Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489 (party contesting jurisdiction has adequate remedy by appeal when court has general jurisdiction)
Apel v. Katz, 83 Ohio St.3d 11 (common pleas court may adjudicate easement disputes via declaratory judgment)