Title: State ex rel. Verhovec v. Court of Common Pleas

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. Verhovec v. Washington Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2013-
Ohio-4518.] 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4518 
THE STATE EX REL. VERHOVEC, APPELLANT, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY COURT 
OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
THE STATE EX REL. VERHOVEC, APPELLANT, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY COURT 
OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Verhovec v. Washington Cty. Court of Common 
Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4518.] 
Prohibition—Writ sought in two cases to prevent judge from ruling on motions for 
sanctions—Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available—
Court of appeals’ dismissals of complaints affirmed. 
(Nos. 2013-0163 and 2013-0164—Submitted July 9, 2013—Decided  
October 15, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Washington County, No. 12CA43. 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Washington County, No. 12CA44. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} These two appeals have similar facts and identical legal issues, and 
therefore we resolve them together in this opinion.  Each is an appeal from a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
judgment denying a writ of prohibition related to an underlying public-records 
mandamus case.  Appellants, Edward and Dorothy Verhovec (husband and wife) 
each filed a public-records mandamus action in the Washington County Court of 
Common Pleas, and in those cases, the court of common pleas considered whether 
to grant a motion for sanctions against them under R.C. 2323.51.  The Verhovecs 
each assert that the court lacked the jurisdiction to sanction a party in a mandamus 
case under R.C. 2323.51.  They each therefore filed an action in prohibition in the 
Fourth District Court of Appeals.  That court granted a motion to dismiss in each 
case, and the Verhovecs have each appealed to this court.  Because these claims 
were resolved on motions to dismiss, we accept as true all the material allegations 
in the complaints for writs of prohibition. 
{¶ 2} Because the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction and the 
Verhovecs each have an adequate remedy by way of appeal, the Fourth District 
was correct in dismissing the prohibition actions, and we therefore affirm. 
Facts 
 
Case No. 2013-0163 
{¶ 3} In April 2011, appellant Edward Verhovec made a public-records 
request of the city of Marietta by certified mail.  When more than two months had 
passed and he had not received an acknowledgement or response from Marietta, 
he filed a public-records mandamus action under R.C. 149.43 and 2731.04.  Soon 
thereafter, Marietta provided Edward with the requested records, and the trial 
court dismissed his action.  Edward appealed, and the court of appeals remanded 
the case for consideration of Edward’s motion for attorney fees. 
{¶ 4} After the remand, Marietta moved the trial court for sanctions 
under R.C. 2323.51 and alleged that Edward had engaged in frivolous conduct by 
petitioning the trial court for a writ of mandamus.  On September 10, 2012, the 
trial court held a hearing on the motion for sanctions and indicated that a ruling 
would be forthcoming. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 5} Edward filed the present claim in prohibition in the Fourth District 
Court of Appeals before the trial court ruled on the motion for sanctions.  He 
seeks to prevent appellees, the trial court and Judge Susan Boyer, from issuing a 
ruling on the motion for sanctions.  Marietta filed a motion to dismiss, and the 
Fourth District granted the motion.  Edward appealed to this court. 
 
Case No. 2013-0164 
{¶ 6} In August 2010, appellant Dorothy Verhovec made a public-
records request of Marietta.  Dorothy did not believe that she had been given all 
the requested records, so in June 2011, she filed a public-records mandamus 
action to compel Marietta to release the alleged additional records.  Dorothy 
claimed to be entitled to both a writ of mandamus under R.C. 149.43 and a 
forfeiture under R.C. 149.351. 
{¶ 7} In response, Marietta provided Dorothy with additional records 
and filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. 
{¶ 8} In August 2012, Marietta filed a motion seeking sanctions against 
Dorothy for frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51.  On September 10, 2012, the 
trial court held a hearing on the motion for sanctions, but before it ruled, Dorothy 
filed the current case, a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the Fourth District. 
{¶ 9} The prohibition action seeks to prevent the trial court and Judge 
Boyer from issuing a ruling on Marietta’s motion for sanctions.  Dorothy claims 
that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion for sanctions in the 
context of a mandamus case, as the sanctions statute applies only to “civil 
actions” and a mandamus action is not a “civil action.”  The Fourth District, on 
motion by Marietta, dismissed the prohibition action, and Dorothy appealed to 
this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 10} To be entitled to the requested writs of prohibition, Edward and 
Dorothy Verhovec must each establish that (1) Judge Boyer is about to or has 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
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 law.  State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 
Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Miller v. 
Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24, 2011-Ohio-4623, 955 N.E.2d 
379, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 11} Judge Boyer is undoubtedly about to or has exercised judicial 
power in each case.  The questions we must address are therefore whether she has 
jurisdiction to act and whether Edward and Dorothy Verhovec each have an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law if we deny the writs.  The 
Verhovecs each claim that Boyer lacks jurisdiction to award attorney fees for 
frivolous behavior in the underlying case because R.C. 2323.51 applies only to 
“civil actions” and a mandamus action is not a civil action. 
{¶ 12} This court has held that a mandamus case is a “civil action.”  State 
ex rel. Spirko v. Judges of Court of Appeals, Third Appellate Dist., 27 Ohio St.3d 
13, 15, 501 N.E.2d 625 (1986), citing State ex rel. Wilson v. Preston, 173 Ohio St. 
203, 181 N.E.2d 31 (1962), paragraph one of the syllabus.  Moreover, this court 
has upheld a judgment awarding sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 in a public-records 
mandamus case.  State ex rel. Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-
5350, 957 N.E.2d 19.  Thus, Judge Boyer has jurisdiction to award attorney fees 
under R.C. 2323.51. 
{¶ 13} Even though the case law does not specifically indicate that R.C. 
2323.51 is applicable to mandamus cases, where a court has general subject-
matter jurisdiction, it has the power to determine its own jurisdiction in the first 
instance.  “A court of common pleas is a court of general jurisdiction and 
possesses the authority to initially determine its own jurisdiction.  Prohibition will 
not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment.”  State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 74, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998), citing State ex rel. 
Heimann v. George, 45 Ohio St.2d 231, 232, 344 N.E.2d 130 (1976). 
{¶ 14} Thus, Judge Boyer has jurisdiction to determine her own 
jurisdiction.  The Verhovecs should make the jurisdictional arguments regarding 
R.C. 2323.51 to Judge Boyer rather than to the court of appeals in a prohibition 
case. 
{¶ 15} Finally, both Edward and Dorothy Verhovec have an alternative 
remedy at law.  If after Judge Boyer issues an order in each case, the Verhovecs 
believe that she improperly applied the law, each can appeal.  As stated above, 
“[p]rohibition will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment.”  Id. 
{¶ 16} Because the Verhovecs each have an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law to challenge any erroneous ruling by Judge Boyer, the 
Fourth District Court of Appeals was correct to dismiss both actions for a writ of 
prohibition, and we affirm both dismissals. 
Judgments affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
William E. Walker Jr., for appellants. 
 
James E. Schneider, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alison 
L. Cauthorn, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
_________________________