Title: State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. Enyart et al., Appellants, v. O'Neill, Judge,                  
Appellee.                                                                        
[Cite as State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill (1995),        Ohio                     
St.3d         .]                                                                 
Prohibition -- Writ prohibiting judge from considering merits                    
     of appeal of an arbitration decision not allowed, when.                     
     (No. 94-594 -- Submitted February 21, 1995 -- Decided                       
April 5, 1995.)                                                                  
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.                   
93APD10-1424.                                                                    
     Appellants, William and Marilyn Enyart, were plaintiffs in                  
an action in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court against                      
William Enyart's employer, Columbus Metropolitan Area Community                  
Action Organization ("CMACAO").    William Enyart claimed that                   
CMACAO had wrongfully discharged him in retaliation for filing                   
a workers' compensation claim.  The case was referred to                         
arbitration, and in August 1992, an arbitration panel issued a                   
decision in favor of appellant William Enyart in the amount of                   
$23,522.06.                                                                      
     CMACAO filed a notice of appeal from the arbitration                        
decision in the common pleas court, but failed to include a                      
certificate of service as required by Civ.R. 5 and Loc.R. 19.01                  
of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.  On February 16,                   
1993, appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge                      
Deborah P. O'Neill, entered judgment dismissing CMACAO's appeal                  
on the basis of its defective notice of appeal.  On March 5,                     
1993, CMACAO filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the                     
judgment dismissing the appeal.                                                  
     On April 27, 1993, Judge O'Neill issued an oral decision                    
granting CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B) motion and vacating her prior                     
judgment dismissing the appeal.  By nunc pro tunc entries filed                  
September 17 and 24, 1993, Judge O'Neill's decision granting                     
CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B) motion was journalized.    The basis of                    
the ruling was appellants' counsel's statement that she had                      
been aware prior to the scheduled trial date in common pleas                     
court that an appeal from the arbitration decision had been                      
filed.                                                                           
     On October 14, 1993, appellants filed a notice of appeal                    
from Judge O'Neill's decision granting CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B)                     
motion.  On the same date, appellants filed a complaint in the                   
Court of Appeals for Franklin County seeking a writ of                           
prohibition to preclude Judge O'Neill from proceeding further                    
on the appeal from the arbitration decision.  On October 20,                     
1993, Judge O'Neill proceeded to the merits of CMACAO's appeal                   
and issued a decision granting summary judgment in favor of                      
CMACAO.  On January 27, 1994, the Court of Appeals for Franklin                  
County denied appellants' complaint for a writ of prohibition.                   
     The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of                     
right.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Brenda B. Alleman, for appellants.                                          
     Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and                   
Elizabeth A. Scott, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                          
appellee.                                                                        
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  In order to obtain a writ of prohibition,                      
appellants had the burden of proving that Judge O'Neill was                      
about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority, that                     
exercise of this power was unauthorized by law, and that they                    
had no other adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Keenan v.                    
Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119, 121.                   
At the time appellants filed their prohibition action in the                     
court of appeals, Judge O'Neill was about to exercise judicial                   
authority to consider the merits of CMACAO's appeal of the                       
arbitration decision.  However, the court of appeals denied the                  
writ  on the basis that appellants possessed an adequate remedy                  
by way of appeal.                                                                
     Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a                     
court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine                   
its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging the court's                        
jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law by appeal.  Worrell                   
v. Athens Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 491,                  
495-496, 633 N.E.2d 1130, 1134; State ex rel. Sanquily v. Lucas                  
Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 78, 573 N.E.2d                  
606.  Although appellants, in a rambling argument on appeal,                     
contend that Judge O'Neill patently and unambiguously lacked                     
jurisdiction to grant the Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from                    
judgment, this argument is premised on their claims that the                     
motion was "frivolous" and was made without "any valid                           
reasons."  In effect, appellants contend that Judge O'Neill                      
abused her discretion in granting the motion and vacating the                    
judgment.                                                                        
     Pursuant to Civ.R. 60, a trial court retains jurisdiction                   
to grant relief from its own judgment.  See Carlson v. Kalafut                   
(May 24, 1993), Mahoning App. No. 92 C.A. 52, unreported.                        
Prohibition does not lie to prevent a merely erroneous decision                  
by the court.  State ex rel. Soley v. Dorrell (1994), 69 Ohio                    
St.3d 514, 516, 634 N.E.2d 215, 216.  In that Judge O'Neill                      
possessed jurisdiction to rule on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, the                   
fact that she may have exercised that jurisdiction erroneously                   
does not give rise to extraordinary relief by prohibition.  The                  
extraordinary remedy of prohibition may not be employed before                   
trial on the merits, as a substitute for appeal to review                        
"'mere errors, or irregularities in the proceedings of a court                   
having proper jurisdiction.'"  State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield                  
Lake (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 109, 637 N.E.2d 319, 324,                        
citing State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d                   
134, 137, 63 O.O.2d 229, 231, 296 N.E.2d 526, 528; see, also,                    
State ex rel. Gyurcsik v. Angelotta (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 345,                   
4 O.O.3d 482, 364 N.E.2d 284 (writ of prohibition denied where                   
trial court granted relief from judgment based on Civ.R.                         
60[B][5]).                                                                       
     In denying the requested writ of prohibition, the court of                  
appeals noted:                                                                   
     "*** The trial court granted relief from a prior judgment                   
pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B).  Relators contend the trial court had                  
no jurisdiction to grant a Civ.R. 60(B) motion.  Even assuming                   
relators to be correct, what would be involved is an erroneous                   
exercise of jurisdiction, not a total lack of jurisdiction to                    
act.  Relators contend that respondent was 'without                              
jurisdiction whatsoever to act.'  They set forth nothing more                    
than the mere assertion and do not explain any basis for the                     
assertion.  Rather, relators allege that the adverse party                       
failed to set forth any valid reasons for respondent to grant                    
the Civ.R. 60(B) motion.  If that be the situation, it is                        
clearly an issue for appeal, which affords an adequate remedy.                   
     "In short, relators have an adequate remedy at law by way                   
of appeal of the order granting relief from judgment by                          
vacating the earlier judgment in favor of relators."                             
     Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that Judge O'Neill                   
did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to grant                    
the motion for relief from judgment, and appeal was an adequate                  
remedy which precluded prohibition relief.  In fact, appellants                  
appealed both Judge O'Neill's judgment granting CMACAO's motion                  
for relief from judgment and her subsequent entry on the                         
merits.  The appeal on the former was dismissed due to a                         
failure by appellants to timely file a brief.  Appellants'                       
latter appeal concluded with a reversal in their favor.  Enyart                  
v. Columbus Metro. Area Community Action Org. (Sept. 6, 1994),                   
Franklin App. No. 93APE12-1658, unreported.  A discretionary                     
appeal from that judgment was dismissed by this court in                         
February 1995.  71 Ohio St.3d 1456, 644 N.E.2d 1028.                             
     Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of                     
the court of appeals is affirmed.                                                
                                                                                 
                                 Judgment affirmed.                              
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.