Title: State ex rel. Mahoning Cty. Commrs. v. Maloney

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Mahoning Cty. Commrs. v. Maloney, 100 Ohio St.3d 248, 2003-Ohio-
5770.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MAHONING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. MALONEY, 
JUDGE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Mahoning Cty. Commrs. v. Maloney, 100 Ohio St.3d 248, 
2003-Ohio-5770.] 
Mandamus sought to prevent judge of common pleas court, probate division, 
from conducting a 2004 budget hearing or ordering the Mahoning 
County Commissioners to appear before him for any such hearing — 
Writ granted. 
(No. 2003-1608 — Submitted October 7, 2003 — Decided November 12, 2003.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 2002, Elizabeth Sublette, the Director of the Mahoning County 
Office of Management and Budget, sent budget forms for 2003 to county offices, 
including the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, and 
instructed the offices to submit the completed forms by September 30, 2002.  In 
accordance with his usual practice, respondent, Judge Timothy P. Maloney of the 
probate court, did not comply with the county’s request for budget forms. 
{¶2} 
Instead, on December 17, 2002, Judge Maloney entered a 
judgment ordering relators, Mahoning County Commissioners, to appropriate 
$922,196 for the probate court’s 2003 budget.  On December 19, 2002, the 
commissioners appropriated $750,000 to the probate court for 2003. 
{¶3} 
On January 27, 2003, in case No. 2003-0171, Judge Maloney filed 
a complaint in this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the commissioners to 
appropriate the $922,196 he had ordered for his 2003 probate court budget.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Following unsuccessful mediation, Judge Maloney’s case was consolidated with 
case No. 2003-0172, a similar case involving the 2003 juvenile court budget. 
{¶4} 
While these cases were pending, in August 2003, Sublette 
informed the various county entities, including the probate court, of the 
commissioners’ budget hearings for 2004.  The commissioners set a hearing date 
on the 2004 budgets for the probate court, the county courts, and the clerk of 
courts for 7:00 p.m. on October 7, 2003.  Judge Maloney never advised the 
commissioners that he could not attend the October 7 hearing or requested that the 
commissioners change the hearing date. 
{¶5} 
On August 26, 2003, Judge Maloney entered a judgment setting a 
budget hearing for the probate court’s 2004 budget for September 18, 2003.  
Judge Maloney ordered the commissioners to attend the hearing and to produce 
“all records and memoranda required to allow the Court and the Commissioners 
to have a meaningful hearing concerning the Court’s 2004 appropriation.” 
{¶6} 
On September 10, 2003, the commissioners filed this action for a 
writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Maloney from conducting the September 18 
budget hearing.  The commissioners also sought a writ of prohibition preventing 
Judge Maloney from ordering them to appear before him for a budget hearing or 
be cited in contempt for failing to appear.  The commissioners additionally moved 
for an expedited alternative writ. 
{¶7} 
On September 17, 2003, we sua sponte stayed Judge Maloney’s 
September 18, 2003 budget hearing “pending announcement of this court’s 
opinion in case Nos. 2003-0171 and 2003-0172, disposing of the issues presented 
in case No. 2003-1608.”  100 Ohio St.3d 1402, 2003-Ohio-4901, 795 N.E.2d 
1246.  On September 25, 2003, we decided case Nos. 2003-0171 and 2003-0172, 
and granted Judge Maloney a writ of mandamus to compel the commissioners to 
appropriate the $922,196 he had ordered for the probate court’s 2003 budget.  
January Term, 2003 
3 
State ex rel. Maloney v. Sherlock, 100 Ohio St.3d 77, 2003-Ohio-5058, 796 
N.E.2d 897. 
{¶8} 
This cause is now before us for our determination under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) and our consideration of Judge Maloney’s motion to dismiss. 
Mootness 
{¶9} 
We stayed Judge Maloney’s September 18 budget hearing pending 
the announcement of case Nos. 2003-0171 and 2003-0172.  Our decision in those 
cases, however, does not render this case moot. 
{¶10} Case Nos. 2003-0171 and 2003-0172 involved the 2003 budget 
orders of Judge Maloney and the juvenile court judge.  This case involves the 
2004 budget process for the probate court.  Therefore, our resolution of Judge 
Maloney’s claims in case No. 2003-0171 does not resolve the commissioners’ 
claims in this case.  Moreover, none of the parties argues that this case would be 
rendered moot by the holding in case No. 2003-0171.  Consequently, we proceed 
to our S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) determination. 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) Determination 
{¶11} We must now determine whether dismissal or the issuance of an 
alternative or a peremptory writ is warranted.  S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5).  In order to be 
entitled to the requested writ, the commissioners must establish that (1) Judge 
Maloney is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of 
that power is not authorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury for 
which no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists.  State ex rel. 
Illuminating Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 97 Ohio St.3d 69, 
2002-Ohio-5312, 776 N.E.2d 92, ¶ 14. 
{¶12} Moreover, “[i]f an inferior court patently and unambiguously lacks 
jurisdiction over the cause, a writ of prohibition will be granted to prevent the 
future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to correct the results of previous 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
jurisdictionally unauthorized actions.”  State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Reed, 99 Ohio 
St.3d 106, 2003-Ohio-2506, 789 N.E.2d 203, ¶ 14. 
{¶13} R.C. 2101.11(B)(2) expressly vests exclusive authority in the 
county commissioners to conduct a budget hearing on a probate judge’s 
appropriation request: 
{¶14} “The probate judge annually shall submit a written request for an 
appropriation to the board of county commissioners that shall set forth estimated 
administrative expenses of the court, including the salaries of appointees as 
determined by the judge and any other costs, fees, and expenses * * * that the 
judge considers reasonably necessary for the operation of the court.  The board 
shall conduct a public hearing with respect to the written request submitted by the 
judge and shall appropriate such sum of money each year as it determines, after 
conducting the public hearing and considering the written request of the judge, is 
reasonably necessary to meet all the administrative expenses of the court, 
including the salaries of appointees as determined by the judge and any other 
costs, fees, and expenses, including, but not limited to, the costs, fees, and 
expenses enumerated in section 5123.96 of the Revised Code.”  (Emphasis 
added.) 
{¶15} Although we have held other portions of R.C. 2101.11(B)(2) 
unconstitutional because they permit the board of county commissioners to 
substitute its judgment for that of the court and improperly place the burden on 
the probate court to prove that its request is reasonably necessary, we have not 
found the statute’s requirement of a budget hearing by the board to be 
unconstitutional. 
{¶16} We have also held that judges have inherent authority to order 
funding that is reasonable and necessary to the court’s administration of its 
business.  State ex rel. Morley v. Lordi (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 510, 511, 651 
N.E.2d 937. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
{¶17} Nevertheless, courts should cooperate with the executive and 
legislative bodies in the budget process.  State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. 
of Commrs. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 63, 734 N.E.2d 811.  While this 
cooperation does not diminish a court’s plenary authority, id., it also does not 
permit a court to infringe the legislative budget process.  Cf., e.g., State ex rel. 
Arbaugh v. Richland Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 5, 7-8, 14 OBR 
311, 470 N.E.2d 880 (Holmes, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“It is 
true that the relator-appellant must be allowed to carry out his judicial duties free 
from interference by his governmental partners.  However, he must adhere to 
recognized budgetary procedures in requesting county funds for the operation of 
his court.”). 
{¶18} Conducting a budget hearing is a manifestly legislative function.  
See State ex rel. Giuliani v. Perk (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 235, 237, 43 O.O.2d 366, 
237 N.E.2d 397 (“a legislative body has a duty to provide for the needs of 
constitutional courts”).  Courts, including Judge Maloney’s probate court, should 
therefore cooperate with the legislative budget process.  By attempting instead to 
usurp the legislative function of conducting a budget hearing, Judge Maloney 
acted in a patently and unambiguously unauthorized manner.  See, e.g., State ex 
rel. State v. Lewis, 99 Ohio St.3d 97, 2003-Ohio-2476, 789 N.E.2d 195, ¶ 31, 
where we granted a peremptory writ of prohibition, quoting DeRolph v. State 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 213, 677 N.E.2d 733, fn. 9 (“ ‘We refuse to encroach 
upon the clearly legislative function of deciding what the new legislation will be’ 
”). 
{¶19} Based on the foregoing, we grant a writ of prohibition to prevent 
Judge Maloney from conducting a budget hearing or ordering the commissioners 
to appear for any such hearing. 
Writ granted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Paul G. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Linette M. 
Stratford, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Division, for relators. 
 
John B. Juhasz and Mary Jane Stephens, for respondent. 
__________________