Title: State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon

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. Allenbaugh v. Sezon, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1754.] 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-1754 
THE STATE EX REL. ALLENBAUGH ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SEZON, JUDGE, ET 
AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-1754.] 
Prohibition—Common pleas courts’ general subject-matter jurisdiction over civil 
actions includes jurisdiction to enforce judgments they have rendered— 
Appellants failed to demonstrate that common-pleas-court judge lacks 
jurisdiction to issue writ of restitution to enforce settlement agreement in 
underlying forcible-entry-and-detainer case—Court of appeals’ dismissal 
of prohibition action affirmed. 
(No. 2022-1220—Submitted March 21, 2023—Decided May 30, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, No. 2022-A-0002, 
2022-Ohio-1718. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellants, Mark and Jacqueline Allenbaugh, appeal the Eleventh 
District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of their action for a writ of prohibition against 
appellees, Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas Judge Marianne Sezon and 
Clerk of Court April Daniels.  The Allenbaughs also request oral argument.  We 
deny the motion for oral argument and affirm the Eleventh District’s judgment. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Heather Rood filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer against 
the Allenbaughs, who asserted several counterclaims against Rood.  On June 2, 
2021, Judge Sezon granted summary judgment in favor of Rood and ordered the 
Allenbaughs to vacate the premises at issue within 14 days.  On the Allenbaughs’ 
motion, the court of appeals stayed the judgment pending the Allenbaughs’ appeal. 
{¶ 3} While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement 
agreement.  Under the terms of the agreement, the Allenbaughs could remain on 
the premises rent-free until December 31, 2021, but Rood would be entitled to a 
writ of restitution and back rent if the Allenbaughs failed to vacate the premises by 
that date.  Rood’s counsel notified Judge Sezon of the settlement.  The Allenbaughs 
then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the court of appeals, which construed 
the filing as a motion to dismiss the appeal and granted it.  See App.R. 28.  But 
before the court of appeals dismissed the appeal, Judge Sezon issued an order 
dismissing the trial-court action with prejudice—despite having already issued the 
judgment that was then on appeal—and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ 
settlement agreement. 
{¶ 4} The Allenbaughs apparently did not vacate the premises by December 
31, 2021.  On January 6, 2022, Rood filed a motion in the trial court for a writ of 
restitution.  The Allenbaughs filed a “motion to quash any writ of restitution” and 
a motion for a stay.  On January 10, Rood countered with a motion to enforce the 
parties’ settlement agreement and a “praecipe to issue writ of restitution.” 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
3 
{¶ 5} Four days after Rood filed her motion for a writ of restitution in the 
trial court, the Allenbaughs filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the court 
of appeals.  In an amended complaint they filed the next day, the Allenbaughs 
contended that their June 2021 appeal from the summary judgment issued in Rood’s 
favor divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement 
agreement that the parties entered into while the matter was on appeal.  The 
Allenbaughs requested a writ of prohibition ordering Judge Sezon and Daniels to 
deny Rood’s January 10 filings or to take no further action on them. 
{¶ 6} Judge Sezon and Daniels moved to dismiss the Allenbaughs’ 
amended complaint.  They argued that because the Allenbaughs’ appeal was no 
longer pending in the court of appeals, the trial court had jurisdiction over the 
pending matters in Rood v. Allenbaugh.  The Allenbaughs opposed dismissal and 
moved for judgment on the pleadings. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss and denied the 
Allenbaughs’ motion as moot.  The court found that there was no stay of execution 
in place that would have prevented the trial court from enforcing the judgment for 
Rood in the underlying case.  2022-Ohio-1718, ¶ 13.  And, the court of appeals 
reasoned, even assuming that the trial court lacked authority to enforce orders while 
the Allenbaughs’ appeal was pending, “it regained such authority with the dismissal 
of the appeal.”  Id.  Moreover, the court of appeals noted that “[t]he question of 
whether the settlement agreement, or the June 2, 2021 judgment should be enforced 
is a matter for the trial court to decide,” and it added that the Allenbaughs had an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal to raise any 
error related to that question.  Id. at ¶ 17.   
{¶ 8} The Allenbaughs appealed to this court as of right.  See 168 Ohio 
St.3d 1402, 2022-Ohio-3532, 195 N.E.3d 1039. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 
{¶ 9} The Allenbaughs filed a motion for oral argument in this case.  Oral 
argument in a direct appeal is discretionary.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A).  In exercising 
that discretion, we consider whether the case involves a matter of great public 
importance, complex issues of law or fact, a substantial constitutional issue, or a 
conflict among courts of appeals.  State ex rel. Sponaugle v. Hein, 153 Ohio St.3d 
560, 2018-Ohio-3155, 108 N.E.3d 1089, ¶ 31. 
{¶ 10} We deny the motion for oral argument.  The Allenbaughs posit that 
this case involves “complex issues of law and fact” related to “the enforceability of 
settlement agreements executed during the pendency of appeals.”  But that is not 
so.  As explained below, the more pertinent question involved in this case is 
whether the trial court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to enforce a 
final judgment.  Oral argument is not needed to inform our resolution of that issue. 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 11} A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ that a court does not 
grant routinely or easily.  State ex rel. Novak, L.L.P. v. Ambrose, 156 Ohio St.3d 
425, 2019-Ohio-1329, 128 N.E.3d 209, ¶ 9.  To be entitled to the requested writ of 
prohibition, the Allenbaughs must show that (1) respondents are about to exercise 
or have exercised judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by 
law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate 
remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law.  Id.  This court reviews the court 
of appeals’ dismissal of the Allenbaughs’ action de novo, presuming the truth of all 
factual allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor.  State ex 
rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284, 2017-Ohio-9141, 95 N.E.3d 365,  
¶ 10. 
{¶ 12} Taking the second named respondent first, the Allenbaughs do not 
explain how Daniels is exercising judicial power in the underlying case.  Absent 
the exercise or potential exercise of judicial power, a writ of prohibition will not 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
5 
lie.  We therefore affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal of the amended complaint 
as to Daniels on this basis alone.  See State ex rel. Martin v. Buchanan, 152 Ohio 
St.3d 68, 2017-Ohio-9163, 92 N.E.3d 869, ¶ 6 (prohibition did not lie against a 
clerk of court, because she was not exercising judicial power). 
{¶ 13} As for Judge Sezon, it is not disputed that she was about to exercise 
judicial power over the postjudgment proceedings in the underlying case.  The 
dispute is about whether Judge Sezon has subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the 
relief Rood seeks.  Specifically, the Allenbaughs argue that Judge Sezon patently 
and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement between 
them and Rood. 
{¶ 14} The common pleas courts’ general subject-matter jurisdiction over 
civil actions includes the jurisdiction to enforce judgments they have rendered.  See 
State ex rel. Klein v. Chorpening, 6 Ohio St.3d 3, 4, 450 N.E.2d 1161 (1983); see 
also R.C. 1923.01 (jurisdiction of common pleas courts over forcible entry and 
detainer) and 1923.13 (jurisdiction to issue writ of execution upon judgment of 
restitution).  Generally speaking, “a court will deny relief in prohibition when a 
respondent judge has general subject-matter jurisdiction and will deem any error 
by the judge to be an error in the exercise of jurisdiction.”  Sponaugle, 153 Ohio 
St.3d 560, 2018-Ohio-3155, 108 N.E.3d 1089, at ¶ 24. 
{¶ 15} The Allenbaughs’ jurisdictional argument focuses on the timing of 
the settlement agreement they entered into with Rood in relation to the order Judge 
Sezon entered after she was informed of the parties’ settlement.  Judge Sezon issued 
an order dismissing the underlying case with prejudice (despite having already 
entered summary judgment in Rood’s favor) and retaining jurisdiction to enforce 
the settlement agreement.  But according to the Allenbaughs, a critical fact is that 
Judge Sezon entered this order while the Allenbaughs’ appeal was still pending in 
the court of appeals. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6 
{¶ 16} It is well settled that “ ‘once an appeal is perfected, the trial court is 
divested of jurisdiction over matters that are inconsistent with the reviewing court’s 
jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment.’ ”  State ex rel. Electronic 
Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 129 Ohio St.3d 
30, 2011-Ohio-626, 950 N.E.2d 149, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Rock v. School 
Emps. Retirement Bd., 96 Ohio St.3d 206, 2002-Ohio-3957, 772 N.E.2d 1197, ¶ 8.  
The Allenbaughs argue that Judge Sezon lost jurisdiction over the underlying case 
when they appealed the judgment in Rood’s favor to the court of appeals.  Thus, 
they contend, Judge Sezon patently and unambiguously lost jurisdiction to enter the 
subsequent order dismissing the case with prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to 
enforce the settlement agreement.  And because Judge Sezon lacked jurisdiction to 
enter the order retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, the 
Allenbaughs argue, the order is void, rendering her without jurisdiction to issue a 
writ of restitution in enforcement of the settlement agreement. 
{¶ 17} The flaw in the Allenbaughs’ argument is that they overlook the 
significance of the summary judgment entered in Rood’s favor on June 2, 2021.  
This was a final judgment in the forcible-entry-and-detainer action, and it ordered 
the Allenbaughs to vacate the premises at issue within 14 days.  Even if the 
Allenbaughs are correct that Judge Sezon lacked jurisdiction to enter her later order 
dismissing the action and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement 
agreement, that would not entitle them to a writ of prohibition.  Judge Sezon has 
jurisdiction to enforce the June 2, 2021 final judgment by granting a writ of 
restitution; she regained this jurisdiction after the court of appeals dismissed the 
Allenbaughs’ appeal from the entry of summary judgment, which terminated the 
stay previously granted.  See 2022-Ohio-1718 at ¶ 13 (noting that the dismissal of 
the Allenbaughs’ appeal terminated the stay pending appeal); Klein, 6 Ohio St.3d 
at 4, 450 N.E.2d 1161 (absent a stay, “the trial court retains jurisdiction over its 
judgments as well as proceedings in aid of the same”); see also R.C. 1923.13 (a 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
7 
trial court shall issue a writ of execution when a judgment of restitution is entered 
in a forcible-entry-and-detainer action).  Thus, the Allenbaughs have not 
demonstrated that Judge Sezon lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of restitution in the 
case. 
{¶ 18} Even if the Allenbaughs had presented a colorable argument that 
Judge Sezon lacked jurisdiction to enter the order retaining jurisdiction to enforce 
the settlement agreement, a writ of prohibition would not follow.  The possibility 
that Judge Sezon will enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to a void order 
does not mean that she patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the 
matter before her.  A court of common pleas “ ‘possesses the authority initially to 
determine its own jurisdiction,’ ” and a writ of prohibition generally “ ‘will not lie 
to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment.’ ”  State ex rel. Heimann v. George, 
45 Ohio St.2d 231, 232, 344 N.E.2d 130 (1976), quoting State ex rel. Mansfield 
Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 5 Ohio St.2d 222, 223, 215 N.E.2d 375 (1966).  The Allenbaughs 
are not entitled to a writ of prohibition to prevent the anticipated enforcement of 
the settlement agreement, because Judge Sezon does not patently and 
unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the matter before her: she has the authority to 
enforce the final judgment entered before the allegedly void order was issued.  If 
Judge Sezon exceeds her jurisdiction, then the Allenbaughs have an adequate 
remedy by way of appeal to challenge any erroneous ruling.  See State ex rel. 
Verhovec v. Washington Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St.3d 120, 2013-
Ohio-4518, 998 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 15. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 19} The Allenbaughs failed to state a claim upon which a writ of 
prohibition could be granted.  Judge Sezon did not patently and unambiguously 
lack jurisdiction over the postjudgment proceedings before her.  We deny the 
motion for oral argument and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
8 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Robert S. Wynn, for appellants. 
Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney, and Laura 
Pizmoht, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
_________________