[Cite as Bank of New York Mellon v. Chrzan, 2018-Ohio-508.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

 Respondent 

-vsSYBIL CHRZAN 

 Petitioner 

JUDGES: 

Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 17 CA 48 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Verified Petition for Writ of Prohibition (or) 

Mandamus (or) Supersedeas 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 8, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Respondent For Petitioner 

NO APPEARANCE SYBIL CHRZAN 

 PRO SE 

 9186 Indian Mount Ct. 

 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 
Fairfield County, Case No. 17 CA 48 2

Wise, P. J. 

{¶1} Petitioner, Sybil Chrzan, has filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or 

Writ of Mandamus. Petitioner has named the Bank of New York Mellon as the 

Respondent. 

FACTS 

{¶2} Respondent, Bank of New York Mellon, obtained a judgment against 

Petitioner and a decree in foreclosure on June 16, 2014. On August 22, 2014, 

Respondent withdrew its request for sheriff sale. The trial court docket reveals the sheriff 

sale was set and cancelled several times through the next few years. No appeal was 

taken of the trial court’s judgment against Petitioner. 

PROHIBITION 

{¶3} In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, petitioner must prove that: (1) the 

lower court is about to exercise judicial authority; (2) the exercise of authority is not 

authorized by law; and, (3) the petitioner has no other adequate remedy in the ordinary 

course of law if a writ of prohibition is denied. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 

69 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119. A writ of prohibition, regarding the unauthorized 

exercise of judicial power, will only be granted where the judicial officer's lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of 

Collective Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 562 N.E.2d 

125. State ex rel. Daniels v. Harris 2008 WL 5197131, 1 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.). 

{¶4} The named Respondent in this case is the Bank of New York Mellon. A writ 

of prohibition is used to limit judicial authority. The Bank of New York Mellon does not 
Fairfield County, Case No. 17 CA 48 3

have judicial authority, therefore, prohibition cannot lie to prevent the Bank of New York 

Mellon from acting. 

MANDAMUS 

{¶5} “For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must establish a clear legal 

right to the relief prayed for; the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the 

act; and the relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 

the law.” State ex rel. Widmer v. Mohney, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2007–G–2776, 2008–

Ohio–1028, ¶31. 

{¶6} With regard to Petitioner’s mandamus claim, Petitioner has also failed to 

name a proper respondent. The petition is difficult to understand, but it appears 

Petitioner’s only claim is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner claims 

the underlying lawsuit was removed to federal court and was never remanded to the trial 

court. It is the action of the trial court that is being addressed in the petition, but the trial 

court was not named as a respondent. 

{¶7} Petitioner has included a photocopy of a portion of the federal court’s online 

docket. From the docket, Petitioner’s “removal” was filed on June 29, 2017. Four days 

later, the federal court dismissed the federal “action sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(e)(2) and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.” 

{¶8} The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine essentially prohibits a federal court from 

reviewing a state court judgment, “Under this doctrine, a federal district court challenge 

to the correctness of a state court judgment must be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.” Voinovich v. Ferguson, 63 Ohio St.3d 198, 210, 586 N.E.2d 1020, 1028–29 

(1992) quoting Lemon v. Tucker, 664 F.Supp. 1143, 1148 (N.D.Ill.1987). 
Fairfield County, Case No. 17 CA 48 4

{¶9} Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the federal court found it lacked 

jurisdiction over the action filed by Petitioner. The federal court did not dismiss the state 

court case as petitioner contends. Petitioner cites no authority for the proposition that 

merely attempting to remove a case to federal court divests the state court of jurisdiction 

indefinitely absent a remand from the federal court. 

{¶10} Because Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent and because 

Petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary elements for the issuance of a writ of 

prohibition or writ of mandamus, the petition is dismissed. 

By: Wise, P. J. 

Delaney, J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur. 

JWW/d 0201