THE STATE EX REL. EVANS, APPELLANT, v. SCIOTO COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 2017-0727
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
November 27, 2018
2018-Ohio-4696
Submitted January 23, 2018. APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 17CA3590.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. Scioto Cty. Common Pleas Court, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4696.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-4696
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. Scioto Cty. Common Pleas Court, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4696.]
Mandamus—Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law precludes issuance of a writ of mandamus—Prohibition—Court of common pleas did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to act in divorce and probate matters—Dismissal of complaint for writs affirmed.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, William H. Evans Jr., for writs of mandamus and prohibition.
Background
{¶ 2} In 2017, Evans filed his mandamus and prohibition complaint in the
{¶ 3} The court of appeals dismissed Evans‘s complaint because he had filed it in Ross County, reasoning that “the Court of Appeals for Ross County lacks authority to issue a writ to the common pleas, probate, and domestic relations courts in Scioto County.” 4th Dist. Ross No. 17CA3590 (May 12, 2017).
{¶ 4} Evans appealed, and Scioto County responded by filing a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Legal Analysis
{¶ 5} We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment, although we do so for reasons different from those expressed by the court of appeals. See State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 152 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 1.
Mandamus and prohibition
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Evans must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Scioto County to provide that relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Tucker v. Matia, 147 Ohio St.3d 418, 2016-Ohio-7450, 66 N.E.3d 730, ¶ 2. For a writ of prohibition to issue, Evans must show that (1) Scioto County has exercised judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power was unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18.
{¶ 7} Evans is not entitled to a writ of mandamus, because he failed to demonstrate that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. He claims that Scioto County erroneously transferred the real estate at issue to his ex-wife during their 2002 divorce proceeding. However, the division of property is reviewable on appeal from a divorce decree, see Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 15 (divorce decree is final and appealable), and “[a]n appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law sufficient to preclude a writ,” Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶ 8.
{¶ 8} Evans is also not entitled to a writ of prohibition. First, his argument that a writ of prohibition should issue to prevent the transfer of the real estate to anyone but him is inconsistent with his assertion that that property was already
Scioto County‘s motion to dismiss
{¶ 9} As noted above, Scioto County filed a motion to dismiss Evans‘s appeal, arguing that his complaint was procedurally defective under
Evans‘s motions
{¶ 10} Evans has filed several motions in this appeal. We deny Evans‘s motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct because although Scioto County‘s motion to dismiss is without merit, it is not sanctionable. We also deny Evans‘s request that we consider Scioto County‘s motion to dismiss as a merit brief.
{¶ 11} Evans also filed a motion for a peremptory or alternative writ in which he seeks an order staying a Scioto County probate case instituted upon the death of his stepfather, Howard E. Sanford. We have authority to issue a peremptory or alternative writ only in an original action, which this is not. S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02 through 12.05. Thus, we deny Evans‘s motion for a peremptory or alternative writ.
{¶ 12} Likewise, we deny Evans‘s motion for an injunction or other writ.
Motions denied and judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and O‘DONNELL, FRENCH, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only.
DEGENARO, J., not participating.
_________________
William H. Evans Jr., pro se.
Mark E. Kuhn, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle M. Parker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.