State ex rel. McQueen v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.
986 N.E.2d 925
Ohio2013Background
- In May 2010, probate court appointed guardian for McQueen and placed him in a secured facility; ward was indigent and the court appointed counsel at the guardianship hearing and allowed its fees.
- In September 2011, McQueen requested guardianship review, alleging ongoing need to challenge guardianship and medicated against his will, and sought court-appointed counsel; initial Dec. 5, 2011 hearing was not provided with counsel.
- Guardianship-review hearing was rescheduled to January 30, 2012; McQueen moved for court-expense counsel, independent evaluation, and continuance; continuance was denied.
- McQueen filed a mandamus action in the court of appeals seeking appointment of counsel at court expense; appellate court denied the writ.
- Supreme Court held that, under RC 2111.49(C) and RC 2111.02(C)(7)(d), the guardianship-review hearing must incorporate the original hearing requirements, including indigent-right to court-expense counsel, and granted the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indigent ward has a right to court-expense counsel at guardianship-review | McQueen asserts clear right under RC 2111.49(C) and 2111.02(C)(7)(d). | Court of Appeals contends statutes are unclear about incorporation into review hearings. | Yes; statutes confer right and duty to appoint counsel at court expense. |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate given remedy available in ordinary course | McQueen has no adequate ordinary remedy to challenge denial of counsel. | Respondents argue remedy exists through ordinary appellate processes. | Mandamus appropriate; relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus elements: clear legal right and duty and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Asberry v. Payne, 82 Ohio St.3d 44 (1998) (right to appointed counsel in specific civil contexts when statute provides)
- State ex rel. Baroni v. Colletti, 130 Ohio St.3d 208 (2011) (court's duty to interpret statutes and resolve doubts in mandamus)
- State ex rel. Fattlar v. Boyle, 83 Ohio St.3d 123 (1998) (duty to resolve interpretive doubts in mandamus context)
- State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 131 Ohio St.3d 478 (2012) (textual construction guiding statutory interpretation)