Title: State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, 123 Ohio St.3d 126, 
2009-Ohio-4692.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. JANOSEK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. 
CUYAHOGA SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency,  
123 Ohio St.3d 126, 2009-Ohio-4692.] 
Prohibition — Agency action that is not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature is not 
subject to prohibition — Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law — 
Writ denied. 
(No. 2009-0705 ─ Submitted September 2, 2009 ─ Decided September 16, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 92387, 
2009-Ohio-1098. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of 
prohibition to prevent appellee, Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, from 
ordering the payment of spousal support and the withholding of money allegedly 
not owed by appellants, James Janosek and Welded Ring Products Company.  
Because no statute or other pertinent law required the agency to conduct a hearing 
resembling a judicial trial when it issued its notice to withhold income for spousal 
support, the agency did not exercise the judicial or quasi-judicial authority 
required for appellants to be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in 
prohibition.  See State ex rel. Wright v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 120 Ohio 
St.3d 92, 2008-Ohio-5553, 896 N.E.2d 706, ¶ 8.  The authorities cited by 
appellants refer only to discretionary authority to hold hearings.  See, e.g., R.C. 
5101.37.  Insofar as appellants claim that the agency is acting contrary to a trial 
court order, they have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
of a motion for contempt in the trial court case.  See State ex rel. Weaver v. Ohio 
Adult Parole Auth., 116 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-6435, 879 N.E.2d 191, ¶ 6. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co., L.P.A., Larry W. Zukerman, and S. 
Michael Lear, for appellants. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Frederick W. Whatley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________