Title: State ex rel. Davet v. Sutula

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Davet v. Sutula, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-759.] 
 
 
 
 
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-759 
THE STATE EX REL. DAVET, APPELLANT, v. SUTULA, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Davet v. Sutula, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-759.] 
Civil procedure—Appellate courts—App.R. 26—Reconsideration inapplicable to 
original actions—Rehearing en banc properly denied for nondispositive 
issue. 
(No. 2011-1506—Submitted February 22, 2012—Decided February 29, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 96548, 2011-Ohio-2803. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment denying the application of appellant, 
Richard F. Davet, for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint for a writ 
of prohibition to prevent appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 
Judge Kathleen Ann Sutula, from issuing any further orders in a foreclosure 
action and for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Sutula to vacate all orders, 
entries, and other process issued in the case.  Davet’s motion was “a nullity 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
because his [prohibition] action was filed originally in the court of appeals, 
rendering App.R. 26(A) inapplicable.”  See State ex rel. Washington v. Crush, 106 
Ohio St.3d 60, 2005-Ohio-3675, 831 N.E.2d 432, ¶ 5; see also App.R. 26(A)(1) 
(detailing the procedure for applications for reconsideration “of any cause or 
motion submitted on appeal” filed in courts of appeals [emphasis added]). 
{¶ 2} We also affirm the judgments of the court of appeals denying 
Davet’s applications for en banc consideration and to certify a conflict to this 
court.  Any conflict concerning the issue of standing in a foreclosure action 
recognized by the court of appeals in its decision dismissing Davet’s complaint 
for writs of prohibition and mandamus was not dispositive of the case because the 
court of appeals held that he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
law by way of appeal, which rendered relief through an original action 
inappropriate.  8th Dist. No. 96548, 2011-Ohio-2803, ¶ 9; see also App.R. 
26(A)(2)  (“Consideration en banc is not favored and will not be ordered unless 
necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of decision within the district on an 
issue that is dispositive in the case in which the application is filed”). 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals did not need to address the merits of Davet’s 
jurisdictional claim—and it did not—because its jurisdiction in the writ case was 
“limited to determining whether jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously 
lacking.”  State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1, 2007-Ohio-6754, 
881 N.E.2d 224, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 4} Davet’s notice of appeal, filed here on September 1, 2011, also 
appealed from the court of appeals’ dismissal of his complaint on June 7, 2011.  
This portion of his appeal, on the merits of the dismissal itself, is dismissed as 
having been untimely filed. 
Appeal dismissed in part 
and judgments affirmed. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Richard F. Davet, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles 
E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________