[Cite as State ex rel. Verhovec v. Washington Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St.3d 

120, 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. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Verhovec v. Washington Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 

137 Ohio St.3d 120, 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 

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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

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. 

{¶ 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 publicrecords 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 
January Term, 2013 

3

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, because 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 

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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

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-Ohio5350, 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 subjectmatter 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. 

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. 
January Term, 2013 

5

{¶ 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. 

_________________________