State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd
177 N.E.3d 1046
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Relator S.Y.C. (pro se) sought writs of procedendo and mandamus after Judge Alison L. Floyd failed to issue rulings on numerous motions submitted at a multi‑day hearing beginning May 5, 2021.
- Some of the underlying motions dated back to 2015–2016 and arose from long‑running juvenile custody and child‑support litigation that had been remanded by this court.
- This litigation has produced multiple prior original actions and appeals; this court previously reversed and remanded for a new hearing and for recalculation/retroactivity of child support.
- Relator alleged time‑sensitive motions (e.g., show‑cause for visitation, holiday/ makeup visitation, reimbursement for expert costs) remained undecided months after the May 2021 hearing.
- Judge Floyd responded she needed more time because the May trial was lengthy and exhibits were voluminous; she filed no supporting affidavits.
- The court found more than 120 days had passed without rulings, granted procedendo ordering prompt rulings, and denied mandamus as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether undue delay warrants a writ of procedendo compelling rulings | Floyd has not issued rulings on matters submitted at the May 2021 hearing (almost five months) and on other long‑pending motions; relator lacks adequate remedy | Judge needs more time due to a lengthy trial and hundreds of exhibits; recent motions filed after the hearing complicate timing | Writ of procedendo granted: rulings on May‑hearing matters within 30 days; rulings or hearings on post‑May motions within 90 days |
| Whether Sup.R. 40(R.C. 2701.02) creates an enforceable right to a ruling within the stated time | Relator relies on the 120‑day guidance to show unreasonable delay | Judge emphasizes discretion and case complexity; cites pandemic and docket control | Court reiterates Sup.R.40 and R.C.2701.02 are laudatory (not per se enforceable), but delay beyond 120 days risks writ; here delay was unreasonable |
| Whether mandamus should be issued to compel compliance with the prior remand (new hearing and order under R.C. 3109.051(G)(1)) | Seeks writ to force Judge to conduct the remand hearing and enter a compliant order | Judge contends she is addressing remanded matters and needs time | Mandamus denied as moot (procedendo granted to compel rulings) |
| Whether COVID‑19, voluminous exhibits, and complexity justify the multi‑month delay | Relator stresses time‑sensitive child‑visitation rights and long pendency | Judge points to pandemic restrictions, lengthy proceedings, and many exhibits as reasons for delay | Court acknowledged reasons but found them insufficient to excuse the delay and ordered prompt action |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 791 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio 2003) (procedendo/mandamus appropriate to compel judicial rulings)
- State ex rel. Brown v. Logan, 6 N.E.3d 42 (Ohio 2014) (standards for writs of mandamus/procedendo)
- State ex rel. White v. Woods, 130 N.E.3d 271 (Ohio 2019) (clear‑right/clear‑duty/adequate‑remedy test)
- State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 21 N.E.3d 303 (Ohio 2014) (same writ‑standard articulation)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 988 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 2013) (Sup.R.40’s 120‑day guideline is laudatory; delay can justify writ)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 650 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio 1995) (procedendo directs entry of judgment but not its content)
- Charvat v. Frye, 868 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 2007) (trial court docket control discretion)
- State v. Bayless, 357 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio 1976) (docket control principles)
- State ex rel. Ticknor v. Randall, 87 N.E.2d 340 (Ohio 1949) (statutory timelines do not create absolute mandamus rights)