Case Title: State ex rel. Adkins v. Mun. Court (Shanahan)

Citation: 2012-Ohio-3833

Docket Number: 2012-0508

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Adkins v. Shanahan, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3833.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3833 
THE STATE EX REL. ADKINS ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SHANAHAN, JUDGE, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Adkins v. Shanahan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3833.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writ of prohibition 
affirmed—Judge does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction. 
(No. 2012-0508—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided August 29, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-120087. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellants, Gregory D. Adkins and Jo Ellen Adkins, for a writ of 
prohibition to prevent appellee, Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge Megan 
Shanahan, from exercising any further jurisdiction in Smith v. Adkins, Hamilton 
M.C. No. 10CV12756. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Judge Shanahan does not patently and unambiguously lack 
jurisdiction in the underlying case despite appellants’ claim that a no-asset 
bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. 727 in 2001 barred the action.  As 
appellants acknowledge, the complaint in the municipal court case alleged a 
secured-debt claim, which would not be discharged by the bankruptcy.  Moreover, 
the bankruptcy discharge specified that “not all” types of debts were discharged.  
Further, there is evidence that the parties to the underlying suit had an ongoing 
relationship that continued well after the bankruptcy discharge was entered in 
2001.  Finally, appellants may have waived their affirmative defense of discharge 
in bankruptcy by failing to raise it in the municipal court case in an answer or an 
amended answer.  See, e.g., Fountain Skin Care v. Hernandez, 175 Ohio App.3d 
93, 2008-Ohio-489, 889 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.); Hill v. Petty, 4th Dist. No. 
93CA15, 1993 WL 525006, *4 (Dec. 14, 1993); Jim’s Steak House, Inc. v. 
Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 688 N.E.2d 506 (1998) (plurality opinion) 
(“Affirmative defenses other than those listed in Civ.R. 12(B) are waived if not 
raised in the pleadings or in an amendment to the pleadings”). 
{¶ 3} Therefore, appellants could not establish that Judge Shanahan 
patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the underlying municipal 
court case.  “[W]ithout a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court 
possessed of general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own 
jurisdiction, and a party contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by 
appeal.”  State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 
N.E.2d 181, ¶ 19.  Because the court of appeals’ duty in prohibition cases is 
limited to determining whether jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously 
lacking, neither that court nor this court needed to rule on the merits of appellants’ 
jurisdictional claim to resolve their prohibition claim.  See generally State ex rel. 
Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 
Ohio St.3d 111, 2010-Ohio-2467, 931 N.E.2d 98, ¶ 39.  Consequently, the court 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
of appeals correctly dismissed appellants’ claim for extraordinary relief in 
prohibition, and we affirm that judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Charles E. McFarland, for appellants. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christian J. 
Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________