Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-21-2021
Case Style:
RONALD SMITH v. AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT, ET AL.
Case Number: 29965
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Akron, Ohio - Real property lawyer represented Defendant seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent an eviction.
Generally, for this Court to issue a writ of prohibition, Mr. Smith must
establish that: (1) respondents are about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of that
power is unauthorized by law, and (3) the denial of the writ will result in injury for which
no other adequate remedy exists. State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Court, 77 Ohio
St.3d 447, 448 (1997). Sua sponte dismissal of a petition, without notice, is appropriate
only if the petition is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts
alleged in the petition. See, e.g., State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-
Ohio-3674, ¶ 7. Mr. Smith cannot prevail on the facts alleged in his petition because he C.A. No. 29965
Page 2 of 5
did not name the correct respondents and, even if he did, the petition did not establish that
respondents lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and an appeal of the trial court’s order
would provide an adequate remedy at law.
{¶3} Mr. Smith is the defendant in a forcible entry and detainer action that was
pending in the Akron Municipal Court. The petition alleged that Magistrate Hightower
lacked personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff in the eviction action was not the real
party in interest. The petition also alleges that Magistrate Hightower erred in her
assessment of the facts when deciding the case.
{¶4} The petition asks this Court to grant the writ of prohibition and set aside
Magistrate Hightower’s ruling to evict Mr. Smith. The petition also requests a writ
directed to the Akron Municipal Court to stay the eviction.
{¶5} Mr. Smith attached two orders to the petition. The first order is Magistrate
Hightower’s April 9, 2021 Magistrate’s Decision. The other order attached to the petition
is the trial court judge’s April 9, 2021 judgment entry that adopted the Magistrate’s
Decision and ordered that a writ of restitution be allowed.
{¶6} Generally, for this Court to issue a writ of prohibition, Mr. Smith must
establish that: (1) the trial court is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of
that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) the denial of the writ will result in injury for
which no other adequate remedy exists. State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Court,
77 Ohio St.3d 447, 448 (1997). Mr. Smith’s petition alleges that Magistrate Hightower
already exercised judicial power without personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the
underlying action. C.A. No. 29965
Page 3 of 5
{¶7} “[T]he purpose of a writ of prohibition is to restrain inferior courts and
tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d
70, 73 (1998). A writ of prohibition “tests and determines solely and only the subject
matter jurisdiction” of the lower court. State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Lancaster, 40 Ohio
St.3d 404, 409 (1988). As noted above, sua sponte dismissal of a petition, without notice,
is appropriate only if the petition is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on
the facts alleged in the petition. See, e.g., State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d
58, 2005-Ohio-3674, ¶ 7.
{¶8} Viewing the allegations of the petition, this Court concludes that Mr. Smith
obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the petition. Mr. Smith named two
respondents in his petition: Magistrate Hightower and the Akron Municipal Court. The
petition did not name Judge Oldham, the trial court judge who entered the order that
granted the eviction.
{¶9} The petition named the Akron Municipal Court as a respondent. The
Supreme Court has held, however, that a court is not sui juris, it is a place in which justice
is judicially administered. Malone v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 45 Ohio
St.2d 245, 248 (1976). A court cannot sue or be sued in its own right, absent express
statutory authority, which does not exist for the purposes of this case. Id.
{¶10} In addition to not naming the proper respondents, the petition also failed to
establish a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction. A court having general
jurisdiction of the subject matter has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction to C.A. No. 29965
Page 4 of 5
hear a cause, and the party challenging the court’s jurisdiction has an adequate remedy
through an appeal. Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203 (2000).
{¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court recently recognized that there are two general
areas in which it has found a trial court judge patently and unambiguously lacks
jurisdiction: (1) a statute has explicitly removed jurisdiction from the court, and (2) in
rare cases, where personal jurisdiction is lacking. Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v.
Ruehlman, 157 Ohio St.3d 296, 2019-Ohio-2845, ¶ 9 and n.1. The rare case recognized
by the Supreme Court involved a trial court judge’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over
the resident of another country who had no contacts with Ohio. State ex rel. Connor v.
McGough, 46 Ohio St.3d 188 (1989). Neither the statutory nor rare cases exceptions
apply here.
{¶12} Finally, appeal provides an adequate remedy for Mr. Smith to challenge the
errors he alleged in the petition.
{¶13} Mr. Smith asserted in his petition that Magistrate Hightower and the Akron
Municipal Court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction. Upon review of the
petition, this Court concludes that Mr. Smith obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged
in the petition, so sua sponte dismissal is appropriate.
Outcome: The case is dismissed. Costs of this action are taxed to Mr. Smith.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: