State ex rel. Washington v. D'Apolito (Slip Opinion)
123 N.E.3d 947
Ohio2018Background
- In 2007 Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure against Wayman E. Washington in Mahoning C.P. No. 2007 CV 03029; a default judgment and decree of foreclosure were entered.
- In December 2017 Washington filed a mandamus complaint in the Seventh District Court of Appeals seeking to vacate the foreclosure judgment, alleging he was never served and the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction.
- The initial mandamus named Judge R. Scott Krichbaum; Washington amended to name Judge Lou A. D’Apolito after assignment issues.
- The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), holding Washington had an adequate remedy by direct appeal.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review, applied de novo Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standards for mandamus, and reversed, remanding for further proceedings because Washington’s sworn allegations of nonservice could not be conclusively disproved on the face of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is precluded because an adequate remedy by direct appeal or other ordinary remedy existed | Washington: direct appeal is not adequate when the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to absence of service; mandamus is appropriate to vacate a void default judgment | Judges/Respondents: Washington had an adequate remedy (direct appeal / Civ.R. 60(B) or motion to vacate) and docket entries show service, so mandamus is improper | The Court: Where plaintiff plausibly alleges lack of service (a jurisdictional defect), availability of an appeal is not necessarily an adequate remedy; dismissal at 12(B)(6) was premature and remand required |
| Whether the court may treat docket entries attached to the complaint as conclusive evidence that service occurred | Washington: the docket entries are not dispositive and should not be weighed against his sworn contrary allegations at pleading stage | Respondents: Washington attached the docket and thus pleaded himself out of court because it shows service was effected | The Court: Documents attached to a complaint may be considered, but the court must not resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage; ambiguity requires remand |
| Whether amended complaint naming proper respondent was procedurally improper | Washington: amendment was timely under Civ.R. 15(A) and R.C. 2731.09; no leave required | Krichbaum: argued amendment without leave was ineffective and futile | The Court: Amendment naming Judge D’Apolito cured respondent-defect and was permissible; no leave required given the rules and timing |
| Whether dismissal may be affirmed on alternative grounds (e.g., prior motions in trial court) | Washington: prior filings (e.g., motion to vacate) do not preclude mandamus where jurisdictional defect is alleged | Respondents: Washington previously sought relief in trial court (motion to vacate) and thus had an adequate remedy | The Court: Prior attempts to obtain relief do not negate mandamus where jurisdictional defect is plausibly alleged; merits must be developed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ballard v. O'Donnell, 50 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990) (mandamus lies where record shows an inferior court lacked jurisdiction even if an appeal might also be available)
- State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70 (2017) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal in mandamus actions and pleading-stage standards)
- State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 106 (1995) (documents attached to a complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss; dismissal on merits at pleading stage should be cautious)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (incorporated material may be considered as part of the complaint)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (2006) (pleading sufficiency standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in mandamus context)