Case Title: In re Estate of Davis

Citation: 1996-Ohio-347

Docket Number: 19960991

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Estate of Samuel Davis, Sr., a.k.a. Samuel Davis. 
[Cite as In re Estate of Davis (1996),   Ohio St.3d     .] 
Mandamus action challenging probate court orders -- Court of appeals 
does not err in dismissing mandamus action when plain and 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists. 
 
(No. 96-991 -- Submitted September 10, 1996 -- Decided November 6, 
1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 15658. 
 
In May 1996, appellant, Louis Davis, filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Montgomery County, challenging various decisions of Judge George 
J. Gounaris in probate court proceedings concerning the estate of appellant’s 
deceased brother, Samuel Davis, Sr.  Appellant requested that the court of appeals 
restore him as executor of his brother’s estate, declare void the 1991 marriage 
between Mary Jo Marable a.k.a. Mary Jo Davis and the decedent, and order 
appellees to provide a detailed accounting of income and expenditures of the 
estate.   
 
The court of appeals subsequently ordered appellant to show cause why the 
case should not be dismissed because of his failure to adequately state whether his 
case was an original action or an appeal.  After receiving appellant’s response that 
 
2
his case was an original action in mandamus, the court of appeals permitted the 
case to proceed.  In March 1996, the court of appeals dismissed the case on the 
basis that appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal.  The court of appeals 
subsequently overruled appellant’s motion for reconsideration.   
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Louis Davis, pro se. 
 
Mathias Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard 
W. Divine, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Judge George J. Gounaris. 
 
Carretta, Brezine & Mort Co., L.P.A., and Donald Brezine, for appellees 
Michael R. Eckhart and Donald Brezine. 
 
Gordon H. Lewis, pro se. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant claims that the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
his mandamus action.  A writ of mandamus will not be issued when there is a plain 
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. 
Hunter v. Certain Judges of Akron Mun. Court (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 45, 46, 641 
N.E.2d 722, 723.   
 
3
 
All of the probate court orders challenged by appellant in his mandamus 
action could have been or can still be challenged by appeal.  The fact that appeal is 
no longer available because of appellant’s failure to file a timely appeal does not 
render the remedy inadequate.  See State ex rel. Schneider v. N. Olmsted City 
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 348, 350, 603 N.E.2d 1024, 1026; 
State ex rel. Cartmell v. Dorrian (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 177, 178, 11 OBR 491, 
492, 464 N.E.2d 556, 558.  Further, mandamus may not be employed as a 
substitute for appeal from interlocutory probate court orders.  State ex rel. Newton 
v. Court of Claims (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 553, 555, 653 N.E.2d 366, 369.  
Appellant can still challenge such orders after a final judgment by the probate 
court.   
 
As appellant concedes, he has not satisfied the prerequisites for the issuance  
of extraordinary relief in mandamus.  Based on the foregoing, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.