Title: State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman

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. Ford v. Ruehlman, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3529.] 
 
 
 
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-3529 
THE STATE EX REL. FORD v. RUEHLMAN, JUDGE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-3529.] 
Prohibition ―Ohio judge patently lacks jurisdiction to issue injunction shielding 
Ohio attorney from collection efforts of Kentucky judgment creditors and 
other orders interfering with Kentucky court’s attempts to enforce its 
judgments before Kentucky judgments were domesticated in Ohio―R.C. 
2329.021 et seq.―Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act―Judge 
has no authority to impose extrastatutory preconditions on filing of foreign 
judgment in Ohio―Writ of prohibition granted to prevent unauthorized 
exercise of judicial power and to vacate orders previously issued. 
(No. 2015-1470—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided June 21, 2016.) 
IN MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION. 
________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} The Boone County, Kentucky, Circuit Court has entered a 
multimillion dollar judgment against former attorney Stanley M. Chesley.  Denied 
relief from the judgment by the Kentucky courts, Chesley has turned to the courts 
of Ohio to thwart collection of the judgment and relitigate the case.  And Chesley 
has found a receptive audience in the respondent, Hamilton County Common Pleas 
Court Judge Robert Ruehlman.  In Chesley v. Ford, Hamilton C.P. No. A1500067, 
Judge Ruehlman has repeatedly acted to shield Chesley and his assets from 
creditors, despite a patent lack of jurisdiction. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Angela M. Ford, seeks a writ of prohibition to preclude Judge 
Ruehlman from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the Hamilton County case.  
Chesley and his former law firm, as intervenors, oppose this request on the merits 
and also based on a claim of mootness.  We grant a peremptory writ of prohibition 
and order Judge Ruehlman to vacate his orders.  We deny Ford’s request for a writ 
of mandamus. 
Background 
The Kentucky proceedings 
{¶ 3} In 1998, attorneys William Gallion, Shirley Cunningham, and 
Melbourne Mills filed a class-action lawsuit in Boone County, Kentucky, captioned 
Guard v. A. H. Robins Company, on behalf of approximately 431 persons who 
claimed to have been injured by the use of the diet drug “fen-phen.”1  Chesley was 
counsel in a separate fen-phen suit in Boone County, which he succeeded in 
consolidating with the Guard class action.  Chesley, Gallion, Cunningham, Mills, 
and another attorney then entered into fee-sharing agreements that were not 
disclosed to the clients. 
                                                 
1 The facts concerning the Guard litigation are taken from the decision of the Kentucky Supreme 
Court in Kentucky Bar Assn. v. Chesley, 393 S.W.3d 584 (Ky.2013).  
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 4} The parties reached a settlement agreement.  American Home 
Products, the manufacturer of fen-phen, agreed to pay $200 million in settlement 
of the claims brought by the 431 named plaintiffs in return for dismissal of their 
claims with prejudice.  The class would be voluntarily decertified, and the class-
member claims dismissed without prejudice.  The clients were not informed of 
these facts before the agreement was executed and the claims dismissed. American 
Home ultimately disbursed $200,450,000 to the client trust accounts of Chesley and 
Cunningham.  The clients received $46,000,000 (approximately 23 percent).  
Chesley personally retained $20,497,121.87. 
{¶ 5} In 2005, several of the Guard clients filed suit against Chesley, 
Gallion, Cunningham, Mills, and the Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living in the 
Circuit Court of Boone County, Kentucky, alleging misconduct and 
misappropriation of the settlement funds.2  The case was styled Abbott v. Chesley 
(the “Abbott case”), case No. 05-CI-436.  Angela Ford, relator in the instant action, 
is an attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and she 
represented the plaintiffs in the Abbott litigation. 
{¶ 6} On March 8, 2006, the Boone County court found Cunningham, 
Gallion, and Mills liable for breach of fiduciary duty.  In a later order, dated August 
1, 2007, the court awarded damages in the amount of $42,000,000. 
{¶ 7} The question of Chesley’s liability remained unresolved for seven 
years.  In the interim, the Kentucky Supreme Court permanently disbarred Chesley 
for his conduct in the Guard litigation.  Kentucky Bar Assn. v. Chesley, 393 S.W.3d 
584 (Ky.2013).  He is registered in Ohio as “permanently retired.” 
{¶ 8} On April 15, 2013, shortly after his Kentucky disbarment, Chesley 
executed a wind-up agreement for his law practice, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & 
                                                 
2 The Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living was an allegedly “charitable” organization set up by 
Chesley “to harbor millions of dollars of the settlement money that was not distributed to the 
clients.”  Kentucky Bar Assn. v. Chesley, 393 S.W.3d 584, 590, (Ky.2013), fn. 6.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Chesley Co., L.P.A. (“WSBC”), of which he was the sole shareholder.  Pursuant to 
the agreement, Chesley transferred his shares in WSBC to Thomas F. Rehme, who 
would hold the shares in trust for the purpose of winding up the corporation’s 
affairs.  Chesley was entitled to receive any proceeds remaining from the 
liquidation of the firm’s assets after the creditors were paid.  In addition, the 
agreement preserved Chesley’s right to share in legal fees relating to services 
performed before the date of the transfer. 
{¶ 9} On August 1, 2014, Boone County Circuit Court Judge James R. 
Schrand granted a motion for partial summary judgment in the Abbott case and held 
Chesley liable, jointly and severally with Cunningham, Gallion, and Mills, for the 
$42,000,000 judgment. 
{¶ 10} On August 11, 2014, Chesley petitioned the Boone County court to 
reconsider and vacate the partial-summary-judgment order.  Judge Schrand denied 
the motions on September 19, 2014. 
{¶ 11} Chesley responded with a motion for clarification, on October 20, 
2014, seeking an order to compel the Abbott plaintiffs to identify by name each 
party-plaintiff, the capacity in which each was suing (individual or representative), 
and the amount of the judgment attributable to each individual.  Judge Schrand 
denied that motion as well. 
{¶ 12} On October 22, 2014, Judge Schrand issued a second amended 
judgment against Chesley, which added language designating the order as final and 
appealable.  Chesley filed a motion to vacate the second amended judgment, which 
was also denied. 
The Ohio proceedings 
{¶ 13} On January 6, 2015, Chesley filed suit in the Common Pleas Court 
of Hamilton County against attorney Ford and “possibly over 400 John Doe or Jane 
Doe” respondents.  These so-called “Unknown Respondents” were the Abbott case 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
judgment creditors.  At the time Chesley filed his lawsuit, Ford and the Abbott 
plaintiffs had taken no steps to domesticate or enforce their judgment in Ohio. 
{¶ 14} In his complaint, Chesley requested five specific orders: 
1. A declaration that before respondents could take any action in Ohio to 
enforce the Abbott judgment, Chesley is entitled to know, and Ford must 
immediately disclose to Chesley and the court, the name, address, and amount owed 
to each judgment creditor, and the exact current total amount owed on the judgment. 
2. A declaration that Chesley is entitled to know, and Ford must 
immediately disclose to Chesley, the amount of money and value of assets 
recovered pursuant to the 2007 judgment against Gallion, Mills, and Cunningham, 
the date on which payments were made or assets forfeited or seized, the total 
amount distributed to the judgment creditors, the amount collected and not 
distributed, and the total amount distributed to the Unknown Respondents pursuant 
to the settlement agreement and in the Abbott case, after reduction for Ford’s fees 
and expenses. 
3. An injunction to prevent Ford, the Unknown Respondents, or anyone 
acting on their behalf from taking any action in the state of Ohio to collect the 
Abbott judgment until 90 days after Chesley receives the information. 
4. An injunction to prevent Ford, the Unknown Respondents, or anyone 
acting on their behalf from registering or domesticating the judgment against 
Chesley in Ohio, or issuing subpoenas or other discovery to parties in Ohio, until 
90 days after Chesley receives the information. 
5. An injunction to prevent the destruction of documents relevant to the 
issues in Chesley’s pleadings. 
{¶ 15} The case was assigned to Judge Ruehlman. 
{¶ 16} The next day, January 7, 2015, Judge Ruehlman entered an ex parte 
temporary restraining order. Under the terms of the order, for the next 14 days: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
1. Ford, any co-counsel, and any Ohio lawyer representing the Unknown 
Respondents were enjoined from taking any action in Ohio to enforce the Abbott 
judgment against Chesley or serve any Chesley-asset-related discovery on any Ohio 
resident, citizen, or domiciliary, except Chesley himself. 
2. Ford, any co-counsel, and any Ohio lawyer representing the Unknown 
Respondents were enjoined “from making any filing in any Ohio court that would 
be or could be part of an effort to domesticate or register” the Abbott judgment in 
Ohio. 
3. Ford, the Unknown Respondents, and any person acting on their behalf 
were enjoined from taking any action to collect the Abbott judgment in Ohio from 
any Ohio resident, citizen, or domiciled entity, other than Chesley. 
4. Ford, the Unknown Respondents, and any person acting on their behalf 
were enjoined from issuing any subpoena seeking documents or testimony to any 
Ohio resident, citizen, or domiciled entity, other than Chesley, if the purpose of the 
requested documents or testimony is to obtain information related to efforts to 
enforce the Abbott judgment. 
5. Ford, the Unknown Respondents, and any person acting on their behalf 
were enjoined from destroying, damaging, or secreting any documents or 
electronically stored information relating to a host of topics.3 
{¶ 17} One week later, Judge Ruehlman entered an order extending the 
injunction to keep the restrictions of the TRO in force until further order of the 
court.  Judge Ruehlman modified the TRO in one respect: whereas the first order 
                                                 
3 Specifically, the order shielded documents relating to any issues described in Chesley’s petition, 
including documents reflecting funds collected and/or credited against the Abbott judgment against 
Chesley’s former co-counsel, the restitution obligations of his former co-counsel, the forfeiture of 
assets in Abbott, funds transferred to or from a person identified only as “Johnston,” funds 
transferred to or for the benefit of victims who were not plaintiffs in Abbott, amounts distributed to 
the Abbott plaintiffs, the operation of the “Tandy L.L.C.” receivership, funds transferred to or by 
the United States Marshals Service relating to the criminal case or Abbott, and the legal fees and 
expenses of Ford and her Abbott co-counsel. 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
permitted Ford to serve discovery on Chesley, the extended order clarified that such 
discovery could only occur in a non-Ohio jurisdiction.  The order expressly stated 
that Chesley was not required to post any security. 
{¶ 18} In February 2015, Ford removed the case to federal court, based on 
diversity jurisdiction.  She then filed motions to dissolve the restraining order and 
to dismiss the complaint.  The motion to dismiss argued that Ohio had no personal 
jurisdiction over Ford, that the complaint identified no justiciable case or 
controversy, and that the complaint constituted an impermissible collateral attack 
against a final judgment from another jurisdiction, in violation of the Full Faith and 
Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. 
{¶ 19} In response, Chesley filed a motion in the federal district court for 
leave to file an amended complaint to identify six Abbott judgment creditors by 
name.  The newly named parties were all Ohio residents.  Chesley then filed a 
motion to remand the case on the grounds that diversity jurisdiction did not exist. 
{¶ 20} U.S. District Court Judge Peter C. Economus found that “Chesley’s 
primary purpose in amending his complaint [was] to destroy the Court’s apparent 
diversity jurisdiction over the original complaint.”  Chesley v. Ford, S.D.Ohio No. 
1:15-cv-83, 2015 WL 1569103, at *3 (Apr. 6, 2015).  Nevertheless, he permitted 
the amendment and granted the remand motion. 
{¶ 21} Once the case returned to state court in May 2015, Judge Ruehlman 
denied Ford’s motions to dismiss the case and to dissolve the injunction.  He denied 
Ford’s request for security for the injunction. 
Dueling proceedings 
{¶ 22} Since then, litigation has proceeded in both Kentucky and Ohio, with 
the two courts in direct and open conflict.  For example, Ford served a subpoena 
duces tecum on the Kentucky offices of the accounting firm Clark Schaefer 
Hackett, seeking financial and tax records for Chesley, WSBC, or any other entity 
in which they hold an interest.  Clark Schaefer refused to comply, in part because 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
it contended that the subpoena violated Judge Ruehlman’s injunction.  Judge 
Schrand granted a motion to compel Clark Schaefer to respond, holding that the 
subpoena did not violate Judge Ruehlman’s order because an Ohio injunction 
“cannot limit [a Kentucky court’s] ability to Order a business located and 
transacting business in Kentucky to comply with Kentucky law to secure a 
Judgment from a Kentucky case.”  However, Judge Ruehlman later declared that 
filing a motion to compel in Kentucky against Clark Schaefer did violate the 
restraining order. 
{¶ 23} Likewise, Judge Schrand granted in part a motion to hold Chesley in 
contempt for failing to provide discovery responses, only to have Judge Ruehlman 
declare the filing of that motion a breach of his restraining order. 
{¶ 24} On January 15, 2015, one day after the second restraining order, the 
Abbott judgment creditors filed a motion in Boone County for an order compelling 
Chesley “to withdraw all efforts to stay this Court’s judgment against [him] that do 
not comply with” certain Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.  Chesley responded 
with a motion in Hamilton County seeking an “amplification” of the restraining 
order to address what he characterized as Ford’s continuing violations and 
misrepresentations of the order. 
{¶ 25} But the most contentious issue involved WSBC, the law firm whose 
shares Chesley had placed in trust for purposes of winding up its affairs.  On May 
21, 2015, Ford filed a motion in the Abbott case seeking an order to compel Chesley 
to transfer his beneficial interest in property held in trust to the Abbott plaintiffs.  
The motion’s description of the nature of the property was redacted and the original 
filed under seal.  But later documents make clear that the property in issue was 
Chesley’s anticipated income from WSBC cases predating his retirement. 
{¶ 26} On June 23, 2015, Judge Schrand granted the motion.  He noted that 
Chesley had transferred more than $59 million from his personal accounts to 
WSBC, including more than $1.3 million on or after the date of the wind-up 
January Term, 2016 
 
9
agreement.  Finding that he had personal jurisdiction over Chesley, the judge 
ordered him to transfer his beneficial interest in the shares of WSBC to the plaintiffs 
within 14 days and ordered him to instruct Rehme, the WSBC trustee, to direct all 
payments owed to Chesley to the plaintiffs, through their counsel, Ford.  Finally, 
he ordered that if Chesley receives any money from his interest in WSBC, he must 
immediately pay it over to Ford.  Chesley unsuccessfully sought to take an 
interlocutory appeal of the transfer order in Kentucky. 
{¶ 27} Three days later, on June 26, 2015, WSBC filed a motion for leave 
to intervene, not in Abbott, but in the Chesley case pending before Judge Ruehlman 
in Hamilton County.  In the same motion, WSBC requested declaratory and 
injunctive relief to protect itself and trustee Rehme (who was not named as a party) 
from having to comply with Judge Schrand’s transfer order. 
{¶ 28} Judge Ruehlman granted WSBC’s motion to intervene on August 
26, 2015.  In the same order, without a hearing, he granted WSBC’s motion for 
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Declaring the transfer motion a violation of his 
restraining order, he ordered WSBC “to disregard and not effectuate any of the 
Kentucky Orders as same may apply to WSBC or the Trust either directly or 
indirectly, including but not limited to the Transfer Order.”   In addition, he ordered 
Rehme (who, again, was not a party) to disregard any orders of the Kentucky court, 
to refuse to transfer Chesley’s interest in the WSBC shares, and to refuse any 
request from Chesley for WSBC’s financial records, to the extent that such request 
emanates from discovery requests or orders in the Kentucky case. Finally, he 
reaffirmed that his injunction order remained in effect. 
{¶ 29} WSBC filed its formal complaint as intervenor in the Chesley suit on 
September 4, 2015.  WSBC requested a declaratory judgment that Judge Ruehlman 
has exclusive jurisdiction to decide all issues regarding collection efforts against 
WSBC by Ford and/or the Abbott creditors.  In addition, WSBC requested a series 
of injunctions and declaratory judgments to prevent the Abbott creditors from 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
seeking discovery concerning WSBC or attempting to take collection action against 
WSBC and ordering Rehme not to comply with any orders from the Kentucky court 
or any instructions from Chesley based on those orders. 
{¶ 30} On September 3, 2015, the Abbott creditors filed a motion before 
Judge Schrand to compel Chesley to comply with the transfer order.  Five days 
later, Chesley answered with a motion before Judge Ruehlman seeking an order 
shielding him from having to comply with the transfer order.  On September 25, 
2015, back in Kentucky, Judge Schrand issued his order on the motion. 
{¶ 31} Judge Schrand began by recounting the history of the litigation, 
noting that Chesley had made no payments to plaintiffs and that the court had 
already granted multiple motions to compel against Chesley.  He cited evidence 
that Chesley had been dishonest in his partial discovery responses, specifically, that 
he omitted a case from his list of fee-generating cases and then amended his 
responses only after the Abbott creditors brought the case to the court’s attention. 
{¶ 32} Finally, Judge Schrand declared that Chesley continued to maintain 
control over WSBC, based on detailed findings of fact, including that in October 
2014, Chesley directed payment of over $16,000,000 in fees from Fannie Mae 
litigation into two separate accounts and directed payments of more than $300,000 
from WSBC accounts to his attorneys.  The judge declared the wind-up agreement 
“a sham”:   
 
The Court finds [that Chesley] is utilizing WSBC and its 
existence during what is supposed to be a wind-up period, to 
prevent Plaintiffs, his judgment creditors, from executing on 
their Judgment.  The Court finds he is taking action to render 
himself insolvent while directing assets to WSBC, including 
fees from the Fannie Mae Litigation and tobacco litigation, 
January Term, 2016 
 
11 
and the transfer of $59 million from his personal accounts to 
WSBC. 
 
Judge Schrand ordered, among other things, that Chesley immediately transfer his 
ownership interest in WSBC to the Abbott judgment creditors. 
The Supreme Court litigation 
{¶ 33} On September 4, 2015, Ford commenced the present action in this 
court for writs of prohibition and mandamus against Judge Ruehlman.  At the same 
time, she filed a motion seeking an emergency stay and an alternative writ.  Judge 
Ruehlman filed a combined motion to dismiss and memorandum in opposition to 
the motion for emergency stay.  On September 17, 2015, this court granted an 
emergency stay of Judge Ruehlman’s orders pending resolution of the case.  ___ 
Ohio St.3d ____, 2015-Ohio-3783, ___ N.E.3d ___.  On October 2, 2015, Judge 
Ruehlman filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 
{¶ 34} On October 5, 2015, Chesley and WSBC filed a joint motion to 
intervene.  The next day, WSBC and Chesley filed three motions: for expedited 
consideration of the motion to intervene, for judgment on the pleadings, and to 
vacate this court’s September 17 stay order.  Ford filed memoranda in opposition 
to Judge Ruehlman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and in opposition to the 
motions filed by WSBC and Chesley to intervene and to vacate the stay order. 
{¶ 35} On October 21, 2015, after Judge Ruehlman’s injunction had been 
in effect for nearly two years, Chesley and WSBC abruptly filed a notice of 
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of all claims against Ford in the Hamilton 
County case.  Judge Ruehlman promptly filed a “suggestion of mootness” with this 
court.  In response, Ford filed a motion to join Linda Brumley, one of the named 
Abbott judgment creditors, as a co-relator.  WSBC filed a motion for leave to file a 
memorandum in opposition to joinder, along with the proposed memorandum. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
{¶ 36} On December 30, 2015, this court granted the motion of Chesley and 
WSBC for leave to intervene and denied their motion for expedited consideration 
of their various motions. 144 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2015-Ohio-5468, 43 N.E.3d 450. 
Recent developments 
{¶ 37} On November 25, 2015, Ford filed a document entitled “Notice of 
Respondent’s Latest Order.”  WSBC and Chesley filed a motion for leave to file a 
responsive memorandum, along with a copy of the proposed memorandum.  The 
two pleadings provided the following additional information: 
{¶ 38} On October 19, 2015, Judge Schrand granted a motion for a show-
cause order and scheduled a hearing for the morning of October 29, 2015.  Judge 
Schrand’s order expressly stated that “Defendant Stanley M. Chesley is hereby 
ordered to appear.”  However, Chesley did not appear, and so Judge Schrand issued 
a warrant of arrest against him on a charge of contempt for failure to appear.  The 
warrant indicated that Chesley “may post bail in the amount of $647,815.64, 
secured by CASH.” 
{¶ 39} At 12:58 p.m. on November 19, 2015, Chesley filed case No. 
A1506294, a new lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court against 
Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Neil, seeking an order prohibiting enforcement of the 
arrest warrant in Ohio or, alternatively, permitting enforcement only with prior 
approval from the Hamilton county court. The case was assigned to Judge 
Ruehlman, who held a hearing on the new filing that very same afternoon. 
{¶ 40} Judge 
Ruehlman 
began 
by 
criticizing―and 
calling 
into 
question―the legitimacy of Judge Schrand’s contempt order, the underlying 
judgment, and even the order disbarring Chesley: 
 
THE COURT:  First of all, they―I want to be fair and give 
people a hearing.  I know they issued summary judgment against 
him.  Of course, most attorneys know I don’t like summary 
January Term, 2016 
 
13 
judgments.  I don’t grant many of them, you know, I like to give 
people their day in court.  They didn’t give him his day in court at 
all― 
[Chesley attorney Vincent] MAUER: 
No sir, they did not. 
THE COURT:  ―over there.  The disciplinary process too 
was interesting because over in Ohio we have our own little police 
force that disciplines us.  Over there―I think Mississippi and 
Kentucky allow attorneys to discipline, so you have a lot of jealousy 
and stuff like that. 
MR. MAUER:  Yeah.  It’s a different system that we have, 
yes, sir. 
THE COURT:  So the issue―so what happened, so they 
issued a judgment against him without―I mean, they didn’t give 
him due process at all.  I mean, they didn’t let him have his day in 
court, did they? 
* * * 
THE COURT:  I am not necessarily taking his side or 
anybody’s side, I think everybody needs a day to at least give their 
side of the story.  He never got that chance. 
So what’s happening now, so the Judge― 
MR. MAUER:  The Judge in Kentucky― 
THE COURT:  Forty-two million dollar judgment against 
him. 
MR. MAUER:  Forty-two million dollar judgment― 
THE COURT: ―on a summary judgment. 
MR. MAUER:  On a summary judgment, yes, sir. 
THE COURT:  That’s pretty unprecedented. 
MR. MAUER: 
The Judge in Kentucky― 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
THE COURT:  I don’t think―has that ever happened at 
anyplace in the United States? 
MR. MAUER:  It’s a lot of money for summary judgment, 
that’s for certain, Judge. 
THE COURT:  I know. 
* * * 
THE COURT:  It just doesn’t seem fair.  I try to be fair. 
 
The prosecutor, on behalf of Sheriff Neil, stated that he had no objection to the 
requested relief.  Counsel for Ford and the creditors were not present and apparently 
were not informed. 
{¶ 41} Judge Ruehlman then signed an order presented to him by Chesley’s 
attorney.  The order declared that Chesley “chose not to appear at the Show Cause 
hearing because his appearance would have been irrelevant to any finding 
concerning implementation of the Transfer Order in Ohio,” a preliminary factual 
finding for which Judge Ruehlman had no basis. The order criticized multiple 
aspects of the warrant.  For example, it stated that it was unclear whether the 
contempt finding was civil or criminal and direct or indirect, claimed that the bond 
amount was unclear, and most remarkably, complained that “the apparent bond 
amount is extremely high, and the apparent bond amount seems to have been set 
without any evidentiary support or cause to believe Chesley could post that 
amount.”  Judge Ruehlman further stated: “Assuming the Warrant sets a bond of 
$647,815.64, that amount is inappropriate if nothing in the Boone Circuit Court 
record explains (i) why such a high amount is needed to insure Chesley would 
appear as required at an Ohio extradition hearing and (ii) if Chesley can post the 
bond.” 
{¶ 42} The order concluded that “[t]he events surrounding the issuance of 
the Warrant and the post-issuance activities appear to show that the Warrant is not 
January Term, 2016 
 
15 
a routine bench warrant” and therefore “should not be routinely enforced in Ohio.”   
Therefore, “[n]o law enforcement officer in Ohio will detain or arrest Stanley M. 
Chesley in reliance on the Warrant without the express prior approval of the Court 
immediately before Chesley is detained or arrested.”  And Sheriff Neil was directed 
to place the order in any court system, computer system, or other file where it might 
be seen by Ohio law enforcement. 
{¶ 43} The Abbott judgment creditors did eventually file a collection case 
against Chesley in Ohio, Abbott v. Chesley, Hamilton C.P. No. M151179, an action 
that had been prohibited by Judge Ruehlman until we entered a stay of his orders.  
Chesley promptly filed for a stay of those proceedings, including a stay on the 
issuance of subpoenas. On October 19, 2015, Hamilton County Common Pleas 
Court Judge Steven E. Martin granted a 30-day stay on the enforcement of 
subpoenas, without explanation.  According to Ford, Judge Martin orally extended 
the stay and “it was heard again on December 14, 2015,” but the record does not 
indicate what he did when the parties appeared before him or whether that stay 
remains in effect. 
Additional facts 
{¶ 44} We note with great concern the representations that Judge Ruehlman 
and others have made to the Abbott creditors.  For example, on August 19, 2015, 
during a hearing before Judge Ruehlman, Carol Boggs, an Abbott judgment creditor 
who Chesley had just added as a named defendant, appeared pro se and was 
permitted to address the court.  Ms. Boggs expressed bewilderment over how 
Chesley could sue her when she had done nothing to him and lamented that she 
could not afford a lawyer.  In response, Judge Ruehlman and Chesley’s counsel, 
Vincent Mauer, repeatedly assured Ms. Boggs that she had no reason to defend 
herself: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
MR. MAUER:  We have not asked for any money from you 
in this lawsuit, and we’re not going to.  We’ve now― 
THE COURT:  Yeah. It’s more procedure, they are not going 
to take anything from you. 
MR. MAUER:  We’re not asking for judgment against you.  
We’re not going to take any money from you.  We’re not going to 
try and take anything.  We’re not going to take your car or your 
house or any of that kind of stuff. 
* * * 
MR. MAUER:  * * * And we’ve really only added―Judge, 
as you know, we only added any individual Ohio residents after 
[Ford’s attorney] chose to try and remove the case to Federal Court. 
THE COURT:  Right. 
MR. MAUER:  Which ultimately proved futile, you know, 
from their efforts. 
THE COURT:  Yeah, it’s more procedural. 
MR. MAUER:  Ms. Boggs is here today really because Ms. 
Ford tried to remove this litigation, and that’s the honest truth and 
the way things went down. 
THE COURT:  Right.  Yeah, she tried to remove it to Federal 
Court. 
MR. SULLIVAN [Ford’s attorney]:  Your Honor, if I may? 
I’m stunned that Mr. Mauer would somehow suggest that I am 
responsible for Ms. Boggs being a defendant in this case.  She is one 
of the respondents who’s identified in the original complaint as an 
unknown respondent, she is a judgment creditor. 
THE COURT:  Well, you tried to bring it to Federal Court, 
to get it out of here to Federal Court, right? 
January Term, 2016 
 
17 
MR. SULLIVAN: 
I did. 
THE COURT:   In response to that then you filed―you said 
there was Ohio residents not diversity, right? 
MR. MAUER:  Correct, Judge. 
THE COURT:  That’s the reason why you bring Ms. Boggs 
in.  You’re not going to be―no judgment is going to be entered 
against you or take any money from you or anything like that.  I 
won’t allow that to happen.  So you don’t have to worry, you don’t 
need a lawyer.  It’s a procedural thing, that’s all. 
* * * 
MR. SULLIVAN: 
* * * They identified her to defeat 
diversity― 
THE COURT:  Right. 
MR. SULLIVAN: 
―so it gets remanded back. * * * 
* * * 
THE COURT:  They are not looking for any money against 
her or anything like that. 
MS. BOGGS:  They have required me to answer that 
summons in 28 days.  There’s nothing in there to answer to. 
THE COURT:  Right.  What about that, so she doesn’t worry 
about this? 
MR. MAUER:  Your Honor, there’s―if Ms. Boggs chooses 
not to retain counsel and be involved, I have a strong suspicion that 
everything Mr. Sullivan does on behalf of Ms. Ford will roll in her 
favor or not― 
THE COURT:  Right. 
MR. MAUER:  ―as it goes forward. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
18 
THE COURT:  Yeah.  She doesn’t have to respond or get a 
lawyer, right? 
MR. MAUER:  We’re not going to ask her to get a lawyer.  
We’re not going to ask her― 
THE COURT:  It was just a procedural thing to defeat the 
diversity―to defeat the Federal Court’s jurisdiction, that’s all.  They 
are not looking for anything.  You don’t have to respond.  You don’t 
need to get a lawyer, just wait.  It all depends on what happens with 
the different courts fighting over the money and stuff, so don’t worry 
about that. 
MS. BOGGS:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  You don’t have to worry about anything, 
okay? 
MS. BOGGS:  I do. 
THE COURT:  Yeah, well, you don’t have to. 
MS. BOGGS:  I struggle every month to pay for my house 
to keep from losing it. 
THE COURT:  Well, don’t worry about that.  You don’t 
have answer anything or hire a lawyer or anything like that.  All 
right.  So don’t worry about it. 
MS. BOGGS:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Right, nobody is going to go after her? 
MR. MAUER:  That’s correct, Judge. 
 
{¶ 45} The transcript shows that both Chesley’s counsel and the trial court 
repeatedly assured Ms. Boggs that she did not need to hire an attorney because she 
had nothing at risk in the action.  That representation was patently false: a judgment 
January Term, 2016 
 
19 
in favor of Chesley could have a dramatic effect on how much money Ms. Boggs 
and the other creditors are able to recover and when. 
{¶ 46} Donald Rafferty, counsel for WSBC, whose motion to intervene was 
pending, was present for this exchange.  He remained silent. 
{¶ 47} What makes this situation more disturbing is Mr. Mauer’s 
representation that Ms. Boggs need not concern herself with the case because Ford 
is present as a defendant, and any arguments she makes will inure to Ms. Boggs’s 
benefit.  Two months later, all claims against Ford were voluntarily dismissed.  So 
the only defendants left in the case before Judge Ruehlman are the “Unknown 
Respondents,” i.e., the individual Abbott judgment creditors, who are unrepresented 
and have not even appeared in the case.  In essence, Judge Ruehlman is presiding 
over a sham lawsuit. 
{¶ 48} Finally, we take judicial notice of recent judicial proceedings before 
United States District Court Judge James G. Carr.  On February 5, 2016, Judge Carr 
issued a show-cause order against Chesley and his attorneys in the case of Waite, 
Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. v. Davis, N.D.Ohio No. 1:11CV851, 
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14040, 2016 WL 447021.  That case began as a fee-
collection action by WSBC against a former client, at which Chesley appeared as 
the firm’s representative.  During trial, facing the possibility of a deadlocked jury, 
the parties reached a confidential settlement. 
{¶ 49} After Judge Carr signed the dismissal entry, one of the Abbott 
claimants filed a motion to compel disclosure of the settlement agreement and have 
the proceeds turned over to her attorney.  Until that filing, Judge Carr was unaware 
of: 
 The wind-up agreement transferring Chesley’s shares to Rehme 
 The $42,000,000 judgment against Chesley in Boone County 
 The June 23, 2015 order to convey Chesley’s beneficial interest in WSBC, and 
all payments derived therefrom, to the Abbott plaintiffs 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
20 
 Chesley’s noncompliance with that order, and 
 Judge Schrand’s September 25, 2015 finding that the wind-up agreement was a 
sham and that Chesley continues to control and direct WSBC and use it to 
prevent collection. 
 
Id. at *2-3.  Judge Carr wrote, “I feel tricked, and complicit, albeit unwittingly so, 
in chicanery, duplicity, and mendacity.”  Id. at *3.  Finding a possible fraud on the 
court, he ordered Chesley and counsel to appear at a show-cause hearing on a date 
yet to be determined.  Id. at *4. 
Legal analysis 
Procedural issues 
{¶ 50} At the outset, we dispense with a number of procedural motions.  
Specifically, we grant Chesley and WSBC’s two motions for leave to file 
memoranda, dated November 4, 2015, and December 7, 2015. 
{¶ 51} In addition, we hold that Judge Ruehlman’s motion to dismiss has 
been withdrawn, and we deny the motion on that basis.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(A)(1) 
permits the respondent in an original action to file an answer “or” a motion to 
dismiss.  (Emphasis added.)  The rule does not permit a party to file both.  By filing 
a subsequent answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Ruehlman 
effectively withdrew or abandoned his prior pleading. 
Suggestion of Mootness 
{¶ 52} Ford is the only named relator in this case, and she has been 
dismissed from the underlying Hamilton County case before Judge Ruehlman.  The 
threshold question for consideration, then, is whether this case can continue in light 
of Ford’s dismissal.  We answer the question in the affirmative. 
{¶ 53} Judge Ruehlman frames his argument as follows:  “As Ford is no 
longer a party in the underlying lawsuit, she has no right to request an extraordinary 
January Term, 2016 
 
21 
writ against a Hamilton County Judge in a lawsuit to which she is not a party.  
Therefore the Respondent suggests that this case is now moot.” 
{¶ 54} This argument confuses two distinct concepts, mootness and 
standing, neither of which is applicable. 
{¶ 55} An issue is moot “when it has no practical significance and, instead, 
presents a hypothetical or academic question.”  State v. Moore, 4th Dist. Adams 
No. 13CA987, 2015-Ohio-2090, ¶ 7; Brenneman Bros. v. Allen Cty. Commrs., 3d 
Dist. Allen No. 1-14-15, 2015-Ohio-148, ¶ 40, fn. 2.  The issues raised in Ford’s 
complaint are not moot.  Judge Ruehlman continues to exercise jurisdiction over 
the Hamilton County case.  More importantly, his restraining order in that case 
remains in force and effect, or at least it will if this court vacates its stay.  And 
because the restraining order expressly binds all agents and attorneys who might 
act on behalf of the Abbott plaintiffs, Ford remains subject to its terms, 
notwithstanding her dismissal as a named defendant. 
{¶ 56} Standing, on the other hand, “refers to whether a party has a 
sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution 
of that controversy.”  Davet v. Sheehan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101452, 2014-
Ohio-5694, ¶ 22.  Ford has a personal stake in the underlying matter because, as 
plaintiffs’ counsel in Abbott, she is entitled to a percentage of any sums recovered.  
Judge Ruehlman’s freeze on collection efforts directly affects Ford’s pecuniary 
interests. 
{¶ 57} The argument in the suggestion of mootness, which Chesley and 
WSBC elsewhere join, is a variation on standing.  They assert that a relator seeking 
a writ of prohibition must be a party to the underlying litigation.  But we have never 
held that a writ of prohibition is available only to the actual parties in the case the 
writ would halt.  To the contrary, we have permitted nonparties to vindicate their 
interests when judges act in the absence of jurisdiction.  See State ex rel. Plain 
Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56, 2006-Ohio-4437, 855 N.E.2d 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
22 
35, ¶ 26 (nonparty members of the press and public have standing to seek a writ of 
prohibition to secure access to a closed courtroom). 
{¶ 58} The parties have not filed a formal motion to dismiss based on 
mootness, but we nonetheless make clear that we do not regard the case as moot.  
And because the case is not moot, we deny Ford’s motion to join Linda Brumley 
as a relator.  Ford cited Civ.R. 19(A)(2), which mandates joinder of a party if that 
person “claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that 
the disposition of the action in his absence may (a) as a practical matter impair or 
impede his ability to protect that interest * * *.”  Ford sought to join Brumley, one 
of the judgment creditors, in order to avoid a mootness determination.  According 
to the service certificate, the motion was not served upon her. 
{¶ 59} We deny the motion because Ford will sufficiently protect 
Brumley’s interests, so it is unnecessary to join her as a party.  See Williamsburg 
Assn. v. Robert C. Verbon, Inc., 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-00-061, 2001 WL 
1517855 (Nov. 30, 2001).  Moreover, Brumley did not “claim an interest” she 
wished to protect by seeking to intervene in the underlying action or in this case.  
Hartley v. Berlin-Milan Local School Dist., 69 Ohio St.2d 415, 418, 433 N.E.2d 
171 (1982), fn. 6. 
The Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings 
{¶ 60} Judge Ruehlman and intervenors have filed motions for judgment on 
the pleadings on various grounds.  We deny both motions. 
{¶ 61} There are three elements necessary for a writ of prohibition to issue: 
the exercise of judicial power, the lack of authority for the exercise of that power, 
and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. 
Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89, 2015-Ohio-3628, 40 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 13; 
State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle, 137 Ohio St.3d 568, 2013-Ohio-5187, 2 N.E.3d 
243, ¶ 6.  With respect to the first element, there is no dispute that Judge Ruehlman 
January Term, 2016 
 
23 
has exercised judicial power and continues to do so in Chesley’s suit against the 
Abbott creditors. 
{¶ 62} The issue raised by the Civ.R. 12(C) motions is whether Ford can 
meet the second requirement for prohibition: showing that the exercise of that 
judicial power is unauthorized by law.  Id.  If the absence of jurisdiction is patent 
and unambiguous, then Ford need not establish the third prong, the lack of an 
adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 
Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 63} For the following reasons, we hold that Judge Ruehlman patently 
and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over both Chesley’s complaint and WSBC’s 
complaint. 
Chesley’s complaint 
{¶ 64} Chesley’s complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that 
Judge Ruehlman has no legal authority to provide.  Ohio has adopted the Uniform 
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, R.C. 2329.021 et seq.  The purpose of the 
act is to give full faith and credit to foreign judgments as required by Article IV, 
Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Appel v. Berger, 149 Ohio App.3d 486, 2002-
Ohio-4853, 778 N.E.2d 59, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.).  The act sets forth the procedure for 
domesticating foreign judgments, i.e., filing the judgment in Ohio to ensure its 
recognition and enforcement. 
{¶ 65} The first step in the process is to file a properly authenticated copy 
of the judgment with the clerk of any common pleas court.  R.C. 2329.022.  Along 
with the foreign judgment, the creditor or the creditor’s attorney must file with the 
clerk an affidavit setting forth the name and last known address of the judgment 
debtor and the judgment creditor.  R.C. 2329.023(A).  In addition, the judgment 
creditor or his or her attorney must file a praecipe instructing the clerk to issue a 
notice of the filing to the judgment debtor, which notice must include the name and 
address of the judgment creditor and the name and address of the creditor’s attorney 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
24 
in Ohio, if any.  R.C. 2329.023(B).  Finally, the law forbids execution or other 
enforcement of the foreign judgment until 30 days after the date of filing.  R.C. 
2329.023(C). 
{¶ 66} Chesley’s complaint asked the court to impose conditions on Ford, 
as attorney for the judgment creditors, for domesticating the Kentucky judgment 
that far exceed the statutory requirements.  The Ohio Enforcement of Foreign 
Judgments Act does not require judgment creditors to calculate and disclose their 
respective shares of the judgment, detail the amounts and dates on which they 
recovered money from other sources, or disclose the amount of money retained by 
their attorney.  But Chesley requested all these disclosures and more as a 
precondition to allowing Ford and her clients to even file their judgment in Ohio.  
And whereas the act provides a 30-day grace period after the foreign judgment is 
filed, Chesley demanded a 90-day halt to collection efforts after all these reports 
were provided.  There is no statutory authority for any of this relief. 
{¶ 67} Despite his patent lack of authority, Judge Ruehlman granted this 
relief and more.  Whereas Chesley sought to impose preconditions on the filing of 
the foreign judgment, Judge Ruehlman’s preliminary injunction order barred Ford 
and the creditors from filing the judgment in Ohio altogether, with no mention at 
all of any conditions that, if satisfied, would lift the prohibition. 
{¶ 68} We see no basis whatsoever for Judge Ruehlman’s assertion of 
jurisdiction to inject himself into the collection process.  A common pleas court has 
jurisdiction over a foreign judgment “once that judgment is filed in accordance with 
R.C. 2329.022.”  Doser v. Savage Mfg. & Sales, Inc., 54 Ohio App.3d 22, 560 
N.E.2d 782 (8th Dist.1988), syllabus.  But the Abbott creditors had not yet filed the 
judgment in Ohio; in fact, they were forbidden to do so by Judge Ruehlman.  And 
now that this court has stayed Judge Ruelhman’s order, the claimants have 
domesticated their judgment and the case has been assigned to Judge Martin. 
January Term, 2016 
 
25 
{¶ 69} But even if a common pleas court has general jurisdiction over a 
case, a writ of prohibition will issue when the court seeks to take an action or 
provide a remedy that exceeds its statutory authority.  See State ex rel. Mason v. 
Griffin, 104 Ohio St.3d 279, 2004-Ohio-6384, 819 N.E.2d 644, ¶ 12-16 (court had 
general jurisdiction over criminal case, but writ of prohibition granted because 
judge patently and unambiguously lacked statutory or constitutional authority to 
hold a jury-sentencing hearing in the case); State ex rel. Triplett v. Ross, 111 Ohio 
St.3d 231, 2006-Ohio-4705, 855 N.E.2d 1174, ¶ 50 (municipal court had no 
statutory authority to require certain attorneys to declare their nonsupport of 
terrorist groups as a precondition for court appointments); State ex rel. Adams v. 
Gusweiler, 30 Ohio St.2d 326, 328-329, 285 N.E.2d 22 (1972) (common pleas court 
had no statutory authority to appoint a second arbitrator). 
{¶ 70} Ford is entitled to a writ of prohibition to prevent the unauthorized 
exercise of judicial power over Chesley’s complaint and to undo the orders 
previously entered. 
The WSBC complaint 
{¶ 71} WSBC’s complaint seeks six specific forms of relief, designated as 
Paragraphs A through F.  Most of the affirmative relief sought by WSBC consists 
of orders to control the collection proceedings, and the remaining requests exceed 
the authority of the court. 
{¶ 72} In Paragraph D, for example, WSBC seeks an injunction to prevent 
Ford and the Abbott creditors from “obtaining any confidential, financial, 
propitiatory [sic] or other information regarding WSBC from Mr. Chesley, Rehme 
or any other party.”   The proposed injunction, it seems, is a stay of enforcement of 
the Abbott judgment, albeit by another name, and is improper because, as discussed 
above, Judge Ruehlman had no statutory authority to control collection proceedings 
before the Abbott creditors domesticated their judgment under R.C. 2329.022. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
26 
{¶ 73} The same objection applies to Paragraphs B and C of the prayer for 
relief, which seek a declaratory judgment that WSBC and Chesley are “separate 
and distinct entities,” that WSBC is not liable for Chesley’s debts, including the 
Abbott judgment, and that the Abbott creditors have no right to seize WSBC assets.  
And the same problem affects the first portion of Paragraph F, seeking a declaration 
of WSBC’s rights and responsibilities under the Kentucky order requiring the 
transfer of Chesley’s beneficial interest in WSBC to the Abbott plaintiffs. 
{¶ 74} At first glance, these might appear to be within Judge Ruehlman’s 
jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment under R.C. 2721.02.  But while 
“declaratory judgment statutes provide an additional remedy which may be granted 
by a court * * * they do not extend the jurisdiction as to the subject matter upon 
which a court may act.”  State ex rel. Foreman v. Bellefontaine Mun. Court, 12 
Ohio St.2d 26, 28, 231 N.E.2d 70 (1967).  For this reason, a common pleas court 
cannot use the declaratory-judgment statute to decide matters over which it 
otherwise has no jurisdiction.  Makowski v. Limbach, 47 Ohio App.3d 129, 130, 
547 N.E.2d 1011 (10th Dist.1988). 
{¶ 75} In its complaint, WSBC alleges that a dispute exists between itself 
and the Abbott claimants as to the proper court and venue for determining the 
claimants’ rights to obtain WSBC documents and information to aid in collection.  
To resolve that dispute, WSBC requests a “determination” that Judge Ruehlman 
has exclusive jurisdiction to decide all such issues.  And in Paragraph D, WSBC 
seeks a declaration that any attempt to obtain “confidential, financial, propitiatory 
[sic] or other information regarding WSBC from Mr. Chesley, Rehme, or any other 
party” can only be conducted in the case before Judge Ruehlman.  Here again, 
WSBC is attempting to use declaratory judgment to expand the jurisdiction of the 
court. 
{¶ 76} The effort to vest Judge Ruehlman with exclusive jurisdiction is an 
improper use of declaratory judgment for a second reason.  To be proper, a 
January Term, 2016 
 
27 
declaratory-judgment action must, among other things, be within the scope of the 
Declaratory Judgment Act.  Freedom Rd. Found. v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control, 
80 Ohio St.3d 202, 204, 685 N.E.2d 522 (1997).  A request for a declaration of 
venue is not within the scope of the statute.  Galloway v. Horkulic, 7th Dist. 
Jefferson No. 02 JE 52, 2003-Ohio-5145, ¶ 27-28 (declaratory-judgment 
proceedings not available to determine whether a case was properly venued in Ohio 
or West Virginia). 
{¶ 77} Finally, WSBC seeks relief in Paragraphs E and F, and it is these 
paragraphs that distinguish the WSBC complaint from the Chesley complaint.  The 
former seeks relief against (or on behalf of) Thomas Rehme, the WSBC trustee.  
Specifically, WSBC demands: 
(1) An order “directing Rehme to decline and reject any request from 
Mr. Chesley for WSBC’s financial records to the extent such request emanates 
from a discovery request directed to Mr. Chesley in Kentucky,” and 
(2) An order “directing and determining” Rehme’s duties and 
responsibilities under the order requiring transfer of Chesley’s beneficial interest 
in WSBC and in response to any instructions he may receive from Chesley 
pursuant to orders from the Kentucky court. 
{¶ 78} Judge Ruehlman lacks jurisdiction over these claims because Rehme 
is not a party to the case.  A party’s failure to join an interested and necessary party 
is a jurisdictional defect and warrants relief in prohibition.  State ex rel. Doe v. 
Capper, 132 Ohio St.3d 365, 2012-Ohio-2686, 972 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 15, 18 (writ of 
prohibition issued due to absence of an interested and necessary party), citing 
Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 
N.E.2d 478, ¶ 99 (“A party’s failure to join an interested and necessary party 
constitutes a jurisdictional defect that precludes the court from rendering a 
declaratory judgment”) and Zanesville v. Zanesville Canal & Mfg. Co., 159 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
28 
St. 203, 209, 111 N.E.2d 922 (1953) (“in an action for a declaratory judgment the 
presence of necessary parties is jurisdictional”).4 
{¶ 79} WSBC and Chesley argue that relator’s complaint raises issues of 
justiciability, not subject-matter jurisdiction, and that prohibition is an 
inappropriate remedy for a trial court’s erroneous determination of justiciability.  
We need not reach that question, however.  We have already concluded that Judge 
Ruehlman’s attempts to control collection proceedings before the judgment had 
been domesticated exceeded the scope of his statutory authority under R.C. 
2329.021 et seq.  Because that conclusion compels prohibition, we need not address 
the justiciability arguments raised by WSBC and Chesley.  See, e.g., Pixley v. Pro-
Pak Indus., Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 203, 2014-Ohio-5460, 28 N.E.3d 1249, ¶ 15 
(declining to address first proposition of law when second proposition was 
dispositive). 
{¶ 80} In summary, we hold that Judge Ruehlman has no legal authority to 
ignore the requirements of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, as 
the complaints ask him to do.  We therefore deny the motions for judgment on the 
pleadings filed by Chesley and WSBC. 
{¶ 81} Instead, we issue a peremptory writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Kim 
v. Wachenschwanz, 93 Ohio St.3d 586, 588, 757 N.E.2d 367 (2001) (where it 
appears beyond doubt that relator is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, a 
peremptory writ should issue).  We further order Judge Ruehlman to vacate his 
orders.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Miller, 83 Ohio St.3d 541, 542, 700 N.E.2d 1273 
(1998) (where a court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the 
cause, prohibition will lie not only to prevent the future unauthorized exercise of 
jurisdiction but also to correct the results of previous jurisdictionally unauthorized 
                                                 
4  Nor could WSBC cure this jurisdictional defect by adding Rehme as an adverse party without 
conceding that the wind-up agreement, which purported to transfer 100 percent of WSBC’s stock 
to Rehme, was, as Judge Schrand asserted, a sham.   
January Term, 2016 
 
29 
actions).  Given these orders, Ford’s motion for an alternative writ and WSBC and 
Chesley’s motion to vacate the court’s stay are denied as moot. 
Mandamus 
{¶ 82} Alternatively, Ford seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Judge 
Ruehlman to dismiss the Chesley case or recuse himself.  The first request actually 
seeks relief in prohibition (or injunctive relief, which this court lacks jurisdiction to 
grant).  And recusal is a matter of judicial discretion that cannot be controlled 
through mandamus.  State ex rel. Brady v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89552, 
2007-Ohio-3277, 2007 WL 1848720, ¶ 22.  Therefore, we deny the request for a 
writ of mandamus.  In this case, the proper remedy may have been an affidavit of 
disqualification, which any party, or counsel for a party, has a right to file pursuant 
to R.C. 2701.03. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 83} For the reasons discussed, we hereby grant the two motions for leave 
to file memoranda, deny the motion for joinder, and deny the two motions for 
judgment on the pleadings and the motion to dismiss.  We grant a peremptory writ 
of prohibition and order Judge Ruehlman to vacate his orders.  We deny the request 
for a writ of mandamus.  And we deny the motion for an alternative writ and the 
motion to vacate the stay as moot. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., 
concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents with an opinion. 
O’NEILL, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 84} I dissent because there were two more appropriate remedies 
available to relator, Angela M. Ford. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
30 
{¶ 85} First, she could have filed an affidavit of disqualification against 
Judge Ruehlman with Chief Justice O’Connor.  Second, having failed to do that, 
she should have been required to seek a remedy by way of appeal after a final, 
appealable order had been rendered. 
_________________ 
Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., Brian S. Sullivan, and Christen M. Steimle, for 
relator. 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and James W. 
Harper and Michael J. Friedmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondent. 
Cohen, Todd, Kite & Stanford, L.L.C., and Donald J. Rafferty; and Zeiger, 
Tigges & Little, L.L.P., and John W. Zeiger and Marion H. Little Jr., for intervenor 
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. 
Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., and Vincent E. Mauer, for intervenor Stanley 
M. Chesley. 
_________________