State ex rel. Messer v. Colaluca, 2013 Ohio 3920

Messer and Rensi divorced in 2011; post-decree Rensi moved to reappoint a guardian ad litem and modify the shared parenting plan to sole legal custody.
Messer moved to dismiss Rensi’s parenting motions; on March 13, 2013 the trial court granted Messer’s motion and dismissed those motions.
On March 25, 2013 the trial court sua sponte vacated its March 13 dismissal and reinstated all pending motions.
Messer filed a complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus in this court seeking to prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the custody matters and to compel vacatur of the March 25 order.
The court considered whether the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 3127.21 and whether Messer had an adequate remedy at law; the court also noted Messer’s procedural failure to file the required supporting affidavit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over child custody after the March 13 dismissal	Messer: March 13 order terminated jurisdiction under R.C. 3127.21 so the court cannot hear custody matters	Trial court: retains general domestic relations jurisdiction and March 13 order did not follow R.C. 3127.21’s required analysis/stay	Held: No patent/unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; prohibition inappropriate
Whether the March 25 sua sponte vacatur was unauthorized and must be mandatorily vacated	Messer: March 25 order improperly reinstated motions and exceeded court’s power once jurisdiction terminated	Trial court: exercised its authority to determine its jurisdiction and correct its prior entry	Held: Court may determine its jurisdiction; Messer failed to show March 13 terminated jurisdiction
Whether Messer has an adequate remedy at law (precluding extraordinary writs)	Messer: extraordinary relief needed to prevent further court action	Trial court: Messer can appeal adverse rulings; multiple post-judgment motions remain pending	Held: Adequate remedy exists by appeal; prohibition/mandamus unavailable
Whether Messer complied with local rule affidavit requirement for writs	Messer: filed a conclusory affidavit asserting truth of complaint	Respondents: affidavit insufficient under Loc.App.R.45(B)(1)(a)	Held: Messer failed required sworn-affidavit support; procedural default warrants dismissal

State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160 (1989) (three-part test for prohibition)
State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417 (1941) (prohibition requires patent/unambiguous want of jurisdiction)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (court with general jurisdiction may determine its own jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush, 39 Ohio St.3d 174 (1988) (writ available when court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489 (1997) (adequate remedy by appeal when court decides its own jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Lesher v. Kainrad, 65 Ohio St.2d 68 (1981) (availability of ordinary remedies bars prohibition)
State ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 121 Ohio St.3d 536 (2009) (appeal is adequate remedy from domestic-relations rulings)
State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440 (2005) (same)
State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64 (1950) (prohibition will not substitute for appeal)
State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273 (1940) (writs should be used with great caution)