Case Title: State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey

Citation: 2023-Ohio-2165

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2165.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-2165 
THE STATE EX REL. M.D., APPELLANT, v. KELSEY, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-2165.] 
Motion for order to enforce writ of procedendo—Vexatious litigators—
S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B)—Appellant’s motion to enforce denied—Appellant’s 
request to declare appellee M.A.D. a vexatious litigator granted. 
(No. 2021-1463—Submitted May 16, 2023—Decided June 30, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 110720, 
2021-Ohio-4171. 
ON MOTION FOR ORDER TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S WRIT OF PROCEDENDO OR, IN 
THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DECLARE APPELLEE M.A.D. A 
VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This case first came to this court as an appeal from an Eighth District 
Court of Appeals’ judgment denying a writ of procedendo.  On July 26, 2022, we 
unanimously reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and granted appellant, M.D., 
a writ of procedendo ordering appellee Judge Reeve W. Kelsey to rule on pending 
motions and to proceed promptly to final hearings in the divorce and domestic-
violence-civil-protection-order (“DVCPO”) cases that at that point had been 
pending for more than five years.  168 Ohio St.3d 679, 2022-Ohio-2556, 200 
N.E.3d 1114.  We later denied a motion for reconsideration filed by appellee 
M.A.D., who had intervened as a respondent in the original action.  167 Ohio St.3d 
1529, 2022-Ohio-3322, 195 N.E.3d 170. 
{¶ 2} M.D. has filed a motion to enforce this court’s writ of procedendo or, 
alternatively, to declare M.A.D. a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  
According to M.D., the divorce and DVCPO cases have yet to proceed to final 
hearings despite this court’s issuance of a writ last July.  M.D. attributes the delay 
to frivolous interlocutory appeals by M.A.D. that are designed merely to divest 
Judge Kelsey of jurisdiction to proceed.  We deny M.D.’s motion to enforce but 
grant his alternative request to declare M.A.D. a vexatious litigator under our rules. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 3} M.D. is the defendant in a divorce case (Cuyahoga C.P. No. DR-17-
367298) and the respondent in a DVCPO case (Cuyahoga C.P. No. DV-17-
367300), both of which were filed on May 31, 2017.  168 Ohio St.3d 679, 2022-
Ohio-2556, 200 N.E.3d 1114, ¶ 2.  In our July 2022 decision, we granted a writ of 
procedendo ordering Judge Kelsey  
 
to forthwith (1) rule on all pending motions in the DVCPO case and 
proceed with a full hearing in that case, (2) rule on M.D.’s June 26, 
2020 motion to reinstate his parenting time in the divorce case, (3) 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
3 
rule on M.D.’s July 21, 2020 emergency motion for temporary 
custody of the minor children, pending trial in the divorce case, and 
(4) proceed promptly to trial in the divorce case, unless the case 
otherwise terminates without trial. 
 
Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 4} After our judgment granting the writ of procedendo, the trial court 
began to address the outstanding motions in the cases.  The court issued an order 
reinstating M.D.’s parenting time and an order removing the minor children’s 
guardian ad litem.  But soon after the court ruled on these motions, M.D. alleges, 
he “was forced to file” a series of show-cause motions because of M.A.D.’s alleged 
noncompliance with the trial court’s parenting order.  The trial court consolidated 
M.D.’s motions and set them for a hearing to take place on October 12, 2022.  It 
also scheduled a final hearing in the divorce case to commence on October 25, 
2022.  However, neither case has proceeded to a final hearing. 
{¶ 5} M.D. attributes the delay to a series of appeals by M.A.D. from 
nonfinal orders and other delay tactics.  First, M.A.D. appealed the trial court’s 
entry of a scheduling order, which the court of appeals dismissed for want of a final, 
appealable order.  M.A.D. moved for reconsideration, which the court of appeals 
denied.  M.A.D. then filed a jurisdictional appeal from the dismissal, which this 
court denied unanimously.  See 169 Ohio St.3d 1444, 2023-Ohio-554, 203 N.E.3d 
740. 
{¶ 6} Second, one day after appealing the scheduling order to the court of 
appeals, M.A.D. filed an affidavit of disqualification, seeking to disqualify Judge 
Kelsey from the cases due to alleged bias.  The chief justice denied the affidavit.  
In re Disqualification of Kelsey, 170 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2022-Ohio-4489, 210 
N.E.3d 556. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
{¶ 7} Third, M.A.D. appealed Judge Kelsey’s order removing the guardian 
ad litem.1  M.A.D. filed separate notices of appeal from the order removing the 
guardian ad litem (separate appeals in the DVCPO and divorce cases), which the 
court of appeals consolidated.  The court of appeals dismissed the consolidated 
appeals for lack of a final, appealable order.  M.A.D. v. M.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 
Nos. 111972, 111984, 112012, and 112021 (Oct. 13, 2022).  M.A.D. moved for 
reconsideration, which the court of appeals denied.  M.A.D. then filed a 
jurisdictional appeal to this court, which we denied unanimously on February 28, 
2023.  See 169 Ohio St.3d 1444, 2023-Ohio-554, 203 N.E.3d 741. 
MOTION TO ENFORCE 
{¶ 8} As a mechanism for enforcing the writ of procedendo, M.D. asks us 
to “issue an order to the trial court directing that, until final judgment is entered in 
both the DVCPO and [divorce] cases, the filing by M.A.D. of additional 
interlocutory appeals will not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction” to 
proceed in the cases.  We deny this relief because M.D. is essentially asking us to 
issue an advisory opinion that future interlocutory appeals will not divest the trial 
court of jurisdiction.  M.D.’s motion does not account for the possibility that there 
could be an order that is an appealable “final order” under R.C. 2505.02.  Granting 
M.D.’s requested relief would thus allow the trial court to proceed despite an appeal 
from a final, appealable order.  This would be contrary to the settled rule that an 
appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction when its proceedings would be 
inconsistent with the reviewing court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the 
judgment.  See State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. 
Court of Common Pleas, 129 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-626, 950 N.E.2d 149, ¶ 13. 
 
 
 
1. Judge Kelsey removed the guardian ad litem because she had also been appointed as the children’s 
attorney; effective January 1, 2021, Sup.R. 48.02(E) prohibits such a joint appointment in cases 
involving the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.  159 Ohio St.3d CLXII, CLXIII. 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
5 
VEXATIOUS-LITGATOR REQUEST 
{¶ 9} In the alternative, M.D. asks for an order declaring M.A.D. to be a 
vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  We grant this request.  M.A.D. has 
used this court to engage in frivolous conduct for the purpose of delaying the 
proceedings before Judge Kelsey and thwarting the effect of the writ of procedendo. 
{¶ 10} S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) provides: 
 
If a party habitually, persistently, and without reasonable 
cause engages in frivolous conduct under division (A) of this rule, 
the Supreme Court may, sua sponte or on motion by a party, find the 
party to be a vexatious litigator.  If the Supreme Court determines 
that a party is a vexatious litigator under division (A) of this rule, 
the court may impose filing restrictions on the party.  The 
restrictions may include prohibiting the party from continuing or 
instituting legal proceedings in the Supreme Court without first 
obtaining leave, prohibiting the filing of actions in the Supreme 
Court without the filing fee or security for costs required by 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.04 and 3.05, or any other restriction the Supreme 
Court considers just. 
 
Under our rules, an appeal or other action is frivolous “if it is not reasonably well-
grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the 
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A). 
{¶ 11} M.A.D.’s actions in this court since we issued the writ of procedendo 
have been frivolous.  M.A.D.’s appeals of nonfinal orders all the way to this court 
appear to be nothing more than a tactic to prevent Judge Kelsey from proceeding 
to final hearings in the cases before him, which we ordered him to do when we 
granted the writ of procedendo.  The appeals M.A.D. brought here were not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6 
reasonably grounded in fact or law and appear to have been prosecuted simply for 
delay.  M.A.D.’s affidavit of disqualification against Judge Kelsey was also 
groundless and appears to have been employed simply to delay the proceedings.  
Taken as a whole, M.A.D.’s filings here were calculated attempts to prevent Judge 
Kelsey’s compliance with the writ of procedendo we issued last year. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we declare M.A.D. to be a vexatious litigator under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) and hereby impose filing restrictions on M.A.D.  Specifically, 
we prohibit M.A.D. from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court 
without first obtaining leave to do so.  Further, under our authority in S.Ct.Prac.R. 
4.03(B) to impose “any other restriction the Supreme Court considers just,” we 
order M.A.D. to give notice of this decision to the Eighth District Court of Appeals 
in any matter currently pending or in any appeal or other action instituted in that 
court by M.A.D.  If the Eighth District determines that M.A.D. has made a frivolous 
filing in a proceeding before it, the Eighth District should consider whether to 
declare M.A.D. a vexatious litigator in that court. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 13} We deny M.D.’s motion to enforce.  However, because M.A.D. has 
persistently engaged in frivolous conduct in this court without reasonable cause, we 
grant M.D.’s request to declare M.A.D. a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 
4.03(B).  We prohibit M.A.D. from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in 
this court without first obtaining leave to do so.  We further order M.A.D. to give 
notice of this decision to the Eighth District Court of Appeals in any matter 
currently pending or in any appeal or other action instituted in that court by M.A.D. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, 
JJ., concur. 
BRUNNER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny appellant’s 
request to declare appellee M.A.D. a vexatious litigator. 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
7 
_________________ 
Zukerman, Lear & Murray Co., L.P.A., Larry W. Zukerman, and Brian A. 
Murray; and Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Suzanne M. Jambe, and Patrick T. Lewis, 
for appellant. 
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nora 
E. Poore, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Judge Reeve W. Kelsey. 
Stafford Law Co., L.P.A., Joseph G. Stafford, and Nicole A. Cruz, for 
appellee M.A.D. 
_________________