Case Title: State ex rel. Steinle v. Dewey

Citation: 2016-Ohio-5549

Docket Number: 2015-1533

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Steinle v. Dewey, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5549.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-5549 
THE STATE EX REL. STEINLE, APPELLANT, v. DEWEY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Steinle v. Dewey, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-5549.] 
Mandamus—Civ.R. 56(D)—Extent of trial court’s duty to issue findings of fact 
when denying motion for summary judgment in part—Mandamus is not a 
substitute for an appeal—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2015-1533—Submitted April 5, 2016—Decided August 30, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County, 
No. S-15-016, 2015-Ohio-3618. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Sixth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the 
complaint for a writ of mandamus filed by relator-appellant, Garrette P. Steinle.  
Steinle filed the action seeking an order directing respondent-appellee, Judge John 
P. Dewey, to issue findings of fact regarding the ownership of various assets in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Steinle’s divorce case.  The court of appeals granted Judge Dewey’s motion to 
dismiss, and Steinle has appealed. 
{¶ 2} Because the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint in this 
case, we affirm. 
Facts 
{¶ 3} Julie Steinle filed a complaint for divorce against Garrette Steinle in 
April 2011, and the case was assigned to Judge Dewey.  In July 2013 and July and 
August 2014, Garrette Steinle filed three motions for partial summary judgment.  
Julie Steinle filed a response in November 2014.  The motions dealt with various 
assets at issue in the divorce; Garrette Steinle asserted that certain assets were 
clearly fully marital property, certain assets were fully separate property, and 
certain assets were commingled property.  In her response, Julie Steinle agreed with 
some of the classifications and disagreed with others, but she did not support her 
response with an affidavit or any other evidentiary material under Civ.R. 56(C) and 
(E). 
{¶ 4} On November 18, 2014, Judge Dewey issued a ruling on the motions, 
granting them in part.  He denied the motions as to the premarital interest in a home, 
a bank account, and some business assets, noting that the business assets needed to 
be appraised first.  Garrette Steinle filed a motion for findings of fact in January 
2015.  He requested that Judge Dewey either find that all of the facts he had asserted 
in the motions were uncontroverted or provide a list of those facts that Judge Dewey 
found to be in dispute. 
{¶ 5} Judge Dewey issued an entry in March 2015 denying Garrette 
Steinle’s motion, stating that under Civ.R. 56(D), it was “not practicable” to find 
the 138 averments offered by Garrette Steinle to be uncontroverted facts and 
suggesting that Garrette Steinle should submit the averments to Julie Steinle’s 
counsel as a request for admissions. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 6} Garrette Steinle filed this action in mandamus in the Sixth District in 
May 2015, requesting an order directing Judge Dewey to issue findings of fact.  The 
court of appeals granted Judge Dewey’s motion to dismiss in September 2015, and 
Garrette Steinle appealed. 
Analysis 
{¶ 7} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Steinle must establish a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Dewey to 
provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, 
¶ 6.  Steinle must prove that he is entitled to the writ by clear and convincing 
evidence.  Id. at ¶ 13. 
{¶ 8} Steinle’s main argument is that Judge Dewey failed to follow Civ.R. 
56(D) in not issuing findings of fact in the underlying divorce case.  That rule states: 
 
If on motion under this rule summary judgment is not 
rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and a trial is 
necessary, the court in deciding the motion, shall examine the 
evidence or stipulation properly before it, and shall if practicable, 
ascertain what material facts exist without controversy and what 
material facts are actually and in good faith controverted.  The court 
shall thereupon make an order on its journal specifying the facts that 
are without controversy, including the extent to which the amount 
of damages or other relief is not in controversy, and directing such 
further proceedings in the action as are just.  Upon the trial of the 
action the facts so specified shall be deemed established, and the 
trial shall be conducted accordingly. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
(Emphasis added.)  The court of appeals concluded that the original action was an 
attempt by Steinle to appeal Judge Dewey’s denial of his motion for findings of 
fact, and the court of appeals dismissed Steinle’s complaint, reasoning that 
mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. 
{¶ 9} Steinle argues that the court of appeals, contrary to the standard for 
resolving motions to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), construed the facts in the 
complaint in Judge Dewey’s favor instead of in his favor.  He also asserts that he 
has a legal right to findings of fact and that the court of appeals essentially rendered 
a determination on the merits instead of applying the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard. 
{¶ 10} Judge Dewey argues in response that the court of appeals properly 
dismissed the complaint and that Steinle has not shown a legal right to the requested 
relief.  We agree with the court of appeals that appellant’s mandamus action is in 
essence an impermissible attempt to appeal Judge Dewey’s denial of the motion for 
findings of fact and that appellant can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief.  
Moreover, because Civ.R. 56(D) requires findings of fact only “if practicable,” 
Steinle cannot establish a “clear legal right” to the requested findings of fact in this 
situation. 
{¶ 11} The court of appeals correctly granted Judge Dewey’s motion to 
dismiss. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Albrechta & Coble, Ltd., Joseph F. Albrechta, John A. Coble, and George 
J. Schrader, for appellant. 
Thomas L. Stierwalt, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Norman 
P. Solze, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________