Title: Dzina v. Celebrezze

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195.] 
 
 
DZINA, APPELLANT, v. CELEBREZZE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195.] 
Writ of mandamus sought to compel trial court to enter judgment in accordance 
with remand order — Writ of prohibition sought to prevent trial court 
from exercising judicial power to modify or vacate remand order — Court 
of appeals’ denial of writs affirmed. 
(No. 2005-1459 — Submitted February 8, 2006 — Decided March 29, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 86043, 2005-Ohio-3127. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for writs 
of mandamus and prohibition to compel a domestic-relations judge to comply 
with an appellate court’s order on remand. 
{¶ 2} In December 1998, appellant, Nancy B. Dzina, and Daniel A. 
Dzina executed an agreed judgment entry for divorce and a separation agreement, 
which governed spousal support and property division.  Nancy and Daniel later 
filed show-cause motions against each other for violating the terms of the divorce 
decree. 
{¶ 3} On May 14, 2003, appellee, Judge James P. Celebrezze of the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, found 
both Nancy and Daniel in contempt of the divorce decree and made numerous 
findings concerning spousal support and property division.  Both Nancy and 
Daniel appealed the judgment. 
{¶ 4} On August 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County 
affirmed the May 2003 judgment in part and reversed it in part, and remanded the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
cause for further proceedings consistent with the following:  (1) Nancy’s award to 
be increased by $153,705 because of an erroneous double deduction, (2) Daniel to 
be ordered to place $153,705 in escrow until the total debt of $307,410 is paid to 
the lender’s estate, (3) Nancy’s award to be increased by $250,000 for improper 
reduction of equity interest in property, (4) Nancy’s award to be increased by 
$65,377 for improper capital-gains tax deduction, (5) Nancy’s share of Daniel’s 
pre-1998 taxes to be placed in escrow until tax liability is finally determined, (6) 
valuation of certain property to be based upon the board of revision’s 
determination, (7) Daniel to place $40,000 into an escrow account for pending tax 
liabilities, and (8) Nancy to be held not to have an equity interest in certain 
properties.  Dzina v. Dzina, Cuyahoga App. No. 83148, 2004-Ohio-4497, 2004 
WL 1902566. 
{¶ 5} On October 22, 2004, Nancy filed a motion with the trial court to 
adopt a proposed judgment entry on remand.  On November 1, 2004, Daniel filed 
a motion to stay the trial court’s May 14, 2003 judgment.  On December 17, 2004, 
Daniel filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion based on his claim that Judge Celebrezze had 
inadvertently described a $250,000 adjustment to Nancy’s property interest 
inaccurately. 
{¶ 6} In January 2005, Judge Celebrezze granted Daniel’s November 
2004 motion, stayed the May 14, 2003 order, without interest, and ordered that 
Daniel post a property bond.  Nancy appealed the stay, but the court of appeals 
dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. 
{¶ 7} On March 1, 2005, Nancy filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge 
Celebrezze to enter a judgment in accordance with the court of appeals’ August 
26, 2004 order on remand and to void the stay and strike the motion for relief 
from judgment.  Nancy also sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge 
Celebrezze from exercising judicial power to, essentially, vacate or modify the 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Dzina order (2004-Ohio-4497, 2004 WL 1902566).  Judge Celebrezze moved to 
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 
{¶ 8} On June 23, 2005, the court of appeals granted Judge Celebrezze’s 
motion and dismissed Nancy’s complaint.  The court of appeals reasoned that 
Judge Celebrezze had continuing jurisdiction to consider Daniel’s motions for 
stay and for relief from judgment and that Judge Celebrezze had not disregarded 
the court’s order on remand: 
{¶ 9} “Contrary to [Nancy’s] claim, we find that Judge Celebrezze has 
not failed to implement the judgment of this court upon remand.  Each of the 
aforesaid findings by this court requires that Judge Celebrezze conduct additional 
proceedings.  In fact, a review of the docket in the underlying divorce action 
clearly demonstrates that Judge Celebrezze has scheduled additional proceedings 
per the order of this court.  At this point in time, [Nancy] has not demonstrated 
that Judge Celebrezze has failed to implement the modifications ordered by this 
court with regard to the distribution of funds under the separation agreement.” 
{¶ 10} In her appeal as of right, Nancy claims that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing her complaint.  She contends that she is entitled to writs of 
mandamus and prohibition because Judge Celebrezze is violating the court of 
appeals’ May 14, 2003 mandate. 
{¶ 11} The court of appeals held that these writs were inappropriate, in 
part because Nancy has an adequate remedy at law by appeal from any adverse 
final judgment entered by Judge Celebrezze. 
{¶ 12} Neither mandamus nor prohibition will issue if the party seeking 
extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State 
ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 103 Ohio St.3d 166, 2004-Ohio-4756, 814 N.E.2d 865, 
¶ 4.  In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court 
having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and 
a party challenging that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.  State ex 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
rel. Blackwell v. Crawford, 106 Ohio St.3d 447, 2005-Ohio-5124, 835 N.E.2d 
1232, ¶ 19. 
{¶ 13} Judge Celebrezze did not patently and unambiguously disregard 
the court of appeals’ August 26, 2004 mandate.  In fact, the same court that issued 
the mandate Nancy seeks to enforce found that Judge Celebrezze had “not failed 
to implement the judgment of this court upon remand” and that the court’s order 
required that he conduct additional proceedings.  The court of appeals was in the 
best position to determine whether Judge Celebrezze had disregarded its mandate, 
and that court concluded that he had not.  See State ex rel. Borden v. Hendon, 96 
Ohio St.3d 64, 2002-Ohio-3525, 771 N.E.2d 247, ¶ 9; State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig 
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 249, 252, 648 N.E.2d 1355 (“The court that issued the 
order sought to be enforced is in the best position to determine if that order has 
been disobeyed”). 
{¶ 14} Consequently, in the absence of a patent and unambiguous 
disregard of the court of appeals’ mandate, Nancy has or had adequate remedies 
by appeal and by motion for contempt to challenge Judge Celebrezze’s rulings on 
remand.  See State ex rel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Henson, 96 Ohio St.3d 33, 
2002-Ohio-2851, 770 N.E.2d 580, ¶ 13.  Thus, the use of extraordinary relief to 
enforce a judgment is not widespread, because of the availability of other means 
of enforcement, e.g., motion for contempt.  See, generally, State ex rel. Natl. City 
Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-4437, 814 N.E.2d 58, ¶ 12, and 
cases cited therein. 
{¶ 15} Further, Judge Celebrezze had jurisdiction over Daniel’s 
postjudgment motions for stay and for relief from judgment.  State ex rel. Soukup 
v. Celebrezze (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 549, 551, 700 N.E.2d 1278 (“Under Civ.R. 
75(I), the continuing jurisdiction of a court that issues a domestic relations decree 
‘may be invoked by the filing of any motion by a party’ ”); State ex rel. Enyart v. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
O’Neill (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 656, 646 N.E.2d 1110 (“Pursuant to Civ.R. 60, 
a trial court retains jurisdiction to grant relief from its own judgment”). 
{¶ 16} Nancy finally claims that after she filed this appeal, Judge 
Celebrezze entered an August 16, 2005 judgment that “purportedly” implemented 
the court of appeals’ August 26, 2004 order on remand but did not, and that the 
judge also improperly stayed the August 16, 2005 judgment.  We cannot, 
however, add matter to the record before us that was not part of the court of 
appeals’ proceedings and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.  
Hardy v. McFaul, 103 Ohio St.3d 408, 2004-Ohio-5467, 816 N.E.2d 248, ¶ 9.  In 
addition, even if, as Nancy claims, she cannot appeal Judge Celebrezze’s August 
15, 2005 entry because of the stay, she could still move the court of appeals to 
find Judge Celebrezze in contempt for not complying with that court’s mandate. 
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in 
dismissing the complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition.  Accordingly, 
we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., Peter M. Poulos, and Adam D. 
Cornett, for appellant. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles 
E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Patrick J. Holland, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Daniel A. Dzina. 
______________________