Title: State ex rel. Jackson v. Miller

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. JACKSON, APPELLANT, v. MILLER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Jackson v. Miller (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Prohibition — Writ prohibiting judge from executing a final entry reflecting her 
decision in a boundary dispute  action denied, when. 
(No. 98-700 — Submitted September 15, 1998 — Decided November 10, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD11-1534. 
 
After appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Nodine 
Miller, entered partial summary judgment in Jackson v. Bellomy, case No. 
93CVH08-5931, she convened a hearing to consider sanctions under Civ.R. 11 
and R.C. 2323.51.  At the May 1997 hearing, the parties stated that they had 
reached a settlement  resolving all matters involved in the dispute.  The agreement 
was read into the record, including a statement “[t]hat the property line shall 
extend from the northeast corner of the Bellomys’ garage parallel to the north edge 
of the garage and out to Linwood Avenue.” 
 
When the parties attempted to reduce the agreement to writing in the form 
of a journal entry, a dispute arose concerning the actual location of the reformed 
boundary between  Jackson and the Bellomys.  Jackson and the Bellomys filed 
separate motions to enforce the settlement agreement, in which motions they 
presented different interpretations of the agreement as to the location of the 
boundary line. 
 
Judge Miller held a hearing on this disputed aspect of the parties’ settlement 
agreement, and in November 1997, she issued a decision.  Judge Miller found that 
the parties had agreed to a binding settlement, that the agreement’s provision 
regarding the boundary line was “not vague, indefinite or uncertain,” and that the 
only uncertainty was the actual location of the boundary line on the ground.  Judge 
Miller concluded that based on the parties’ settlement agreement and evidence at 
 
2
the hearing, an existing fence between Jackson’s property and the Bellomys’ 
property  provided the boundary line. 
 
Jackson then filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of 
prohibition to prevent Judge Miller from executing a final entry reflecting her 
decision. In December 1997, Judge Miller entered a judgment incorporating her 
previous decision.  The court of appeals subsequently granted Judge Miller’s 
motion for summary judgment and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Michael P. Jackson, for appellant. 
 
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Zahid H. Siddiqi, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Jackson asserts in her sole proposition of law that the court of 
appeals erred in denying her writ of prohibition. 
 
Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition 
will not issue because a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can 
determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging the court’s jurisdiction has 
an adequate remedy by appeal.  State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 
297, 298, 691 N.E.2d 253, 255.  If, however, an inferior court patently and 
unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the cause, prohibition will lie to prevent the 
future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to correct the results of previous 
jurisdictionally unauthorized actions.  State ex rel. Rogers v. McGee Brown 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 408, 410, 686 N.E.2d 1126, 1127. 
 
3
 
Jackson claims that the court of appeals should have granted the writ of 
prohibition because Judge Miller patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction 
to enter a judgment that contradicted the parties’ settlement agreement. 
 
Jackson’s claim lacks merit because Judge Miller did not patently and 
unambiguously lack jurisdiction.  Judge Miller possessed jurisdiction to rule on 
the parties’ motions to enforce the settlement agreement.  See, e.g., Continental W. 
Condominium Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E. Ferguson, Inc. (1996), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 501, 660 N.E.2d 431; Spercel v. Sterling Industries, Inc. (1972), 31 Ohio 
St.2d 36, 60 O.O.2d 20, 285 N.E.2d 324.  In fact, “[w]here the meaning of terms of 
a settlement agreement is disputed,  * * * a trial court must conduct an evidentiary 
hearing prior to entering judgment.”  Rulli v. Fan Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 
683 N.E.2d 337, syllabus. 
 
Since Judge Miller had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the 
parties concerning their oral settlement agreement, “the fact that she may have 
exercised that jurisdiction erroneously does not give rise to extraordinary relief by 
prohibition.”  State ex rel. Enyart v. O’Neill (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 656, 646 
N.E.2d 1110, 1112.  It is well settled that appeal, not prohibition, is the remedy for 
the correction of errors or irregularities in the proceedings of a court having proper 
jurisdiction.  Id.; State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 
109, 637 N.E.2d 319, 324. 
 
If we were to adopt Jackson’s argument, every potentially erroneous trial 
court construction of a contract would be subject to review by extraordinary writ 
rather than by appeal following final judgment.  This is not the law.  Cf. State ex 
rel. Longacre v. Penton Publishing Co. (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 266, 268, 673 
N.E.2d 1297, 1298, where we affirmed the dismissal of a mandamus action partly 
on the basis that relator had an adequate legal remedy by a civil action for her 
 
4
claimed breach of a settlement agreement.  See, also, State ex rel. Russell v. 
Duncan (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 538, 597 N.E.2d 142.  Significantly, all of the cases 
cited by Jackson to support her “jurisdictional” claim were resolved by appeal 
rather than extraordinary writ.  See, e.g., Spercel. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the writ. 
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.