Court Opinion

ID: 9391937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 18:08:02.922213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.623781
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Speweik v. Stierwalt, 2023-Ohio-1470.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                       WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio, ex rel. Keri L. Speweik                          Court of Appeals No. WD-23-017

        Relator

v.

John P. Stierwalt, et al.                                       DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Respondents                                             Decided: May 3, 2023

                                                    *****

        Lisa M. Snyder, for Relator.

        Karin L. Coble, for Respondent, John P. Stierwalt.

        Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        James A. Hoppenjans, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondents,
        Hon. Matthew L. Reger, Michelle Christie, and Wood County Court
        of Common Pleas.

                                                    *****

        DUHART, J.

        {¶ 1} Relator, Keri Speweik, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and writ of

prohibition on April 3, 2023, against respondents, John Stierwalt, the Honorable Matthew
Reger, Michelle Christie, Esquire, and the Wood County Court of Common Pleas. In the

writ of habeas corpus, relator requests possession of her children, and in the writ of

prohibition, relator seeks to restrain certain respondents from exercising jurisdiction

regarding temporary orders over the custody of her minor children. Relator submits that

the issuance of a writ in prohibition will remedy the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction,

and the writ of habeas corpus will return the children to relator. For the reasons that

follow, we dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus and writ of prohibition.

                                        Background

       {¶ 2} In her petition, relator alleges the following.

       {¶ 3} Relator and respondent Stierwalt were married and are the parents of two

children. A divorce action was filed in the Wood County Common Pleas Court. On

August 11, 2020, a final decree of divorce was issued wherein relator was named the

legal custodian of the children; relator had exclusive possession of the children, subject to

respondent Stierwalt’s restricted right of supervised companionship.

       {¶ 4} Respondent Reger is the Wood County Common Pleas judge assigned to the

matter, and respondent Christie is the Wood County Common Pleas Domestic Relations

magistrate assigned to the matter.

       {¶ 5} On March 16, 2021, respondent Stierwalt filed a motion to modify parenting

time, in which no change of circumstance was alleged, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a).

       {¶ 6} On January 13, 2023, respondent Stierwalt filed a motion for emergency

2.
hearing which recited the status quo and alleged no emergency. On March 17, 2023, an

evidentiary hearing was held on the motion, and on March 23, 2023, respondent Christie

issued a magistrate’s order. The order included findings of fact and conclusions of law

and changed the possession of the children from relator to respondent Stierwalt.

       {¶ 7} On March 28, 2023, relator filed an objection to the magistrate’s

order/motion to set aside the order in which she “raised the procedural deficiencies of

issuing as an ‘Order’ a decision which does more than regulate the proceedings and is

dispositive of a claim or defense of a party.” Also on that day, relator filed an emergency

motion for stay. At the time relator filed her petition, these motions had not been ruled

upon by the trial court.

                                            Law

                                     Writ of Prohibition

       {¶ 8} The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to restrain inferior tribunals and

courts from exceeding their jurisdiction. State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70,

73, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998). A writ of prohibition is an “‘extraordinary remedy which is

customarily granted with caution and restraint, and is issued only in cases of necessity

arising from the inadequacy of other remedies.’” (Citation omitted.) Id.

       {¶ 9} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, a relator must establish three

elements: “(1) the [court or officer] is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power,

(2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause

3.
injury for which no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists.” State ex

rel. Henry v. McMonagle, 87 Ohio St.3d 543, 544, 721 N.E.2d 1051 (2000).

       {¶ 10} A prohibition action may be dismissed sua sponte and without notice if the

court finds the petition is frivolous or it is obvious that the allegations in the petition are

not legally sufficient. State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-

6573, 859 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 14.

                                    Writ of Habeas Corpus

       {¶ 11} R.C. 2725.01 provides that “[w]hoever is * * * entitled to the custody of

another, of which custody such person is unlawfully deprived, may prosecute a writ of

habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such * * *.”

       {¶ 12} Habeas corpus is not available in a child-custody action “when there is an

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Lee v. Weir, 150 Ohio St.3d 110, 2016-

Ohio-8104, 79 N.E.3d 529, ¶ 9, quoting In re G.T.B., 128 Ohio St.3d 502, 2011-Ohio-

1789, 947 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 8. An exception to the general rule permits jurisdictional claims

to be raised in a habeas corpus action. Ross v. Saros, 99 Ohio St.3d 412, 2003-Ohio-

4128, 792 N.E.2d 1126, ¶ 13.

                                        Child Custody

       {¶ 13} R.C. 3105.65(B) provides “[t]he court has full power to enforce its decree

and retains jurisdiction to modify all matters pertaining to the allocation of parental rights

and responsibilities for the care of the children, to the designation of a residential parent

4.
and legal custodian of the children, to child support, to parenting time of parents with the

children * * *.” See also Loetz v. Loetz, 63 Ohio St.2d 1, 2, 406 N.E.2d 1093 (1980).

                                 Analysis and Conclusion

       {¶ 14} The basis of relator’s petition is that respondent Stierwalt did not allege a

change of circumstance in his motion to modify parenting time, therefore respondents

Reger and Christie of the Wood County Common Pleas Court were without jurisdiction

to modify the existing child custody orders.

                                    Writ of Prohibition

       {¶ 15} Upon review, relator alleged in her petition that Wood County Common

Pleas Court issued a final decree of divorce, naming her the legal custodian of the

children. Respondent Stierwalt then filed a motion to modify parenting time and a

motion for emergency hearing, a hearing was held and a magistrate’s order was issued.

       {¶ 16} Based on these allegations, we find that respondents Reger and Christie of

the Wood County Common Pleas Court have exercised judicial power. We further find

since the Wood County Common Pleas Court rendered the original divorce decree

involving relator and respondent Stierwalt, that court retains continuing jurisdiction over

matters relating to the custody, care, and support of relator and respondent Stierwalt’s

minor children. We therefore find that respondents Reger and Christie of the Wood

County Common Pleas Court, in exercising their judicial power, did not patently and

5.
unambiguously lack jurisdiction to modify the existing child custody arrangement and

award temporary custody of the children to respondent Stierwalt. See R.C. 3105.65(B).

       {¶ 17} We conclude the Wood County Common Pleas Court clearly possessed

jurisdiction to determine whether to modify the custody of the children and award

temporary custody to respondent Stierwalt, and relator has an adequate remedy at law as

she can appeal any adverse judgment. As such, we find relator has not satisfied all of the

elements necessary for a writ of prohibition to issue, and we sua sponte dismiss her

petition for writ of prohibition, as the allegations in the petition are not legally sufficient.

                                    Writ of Habeas Corpus

       {¶ 18} As noted above, a writ of habeas corpus will not issue if the relator has an

adequate remedy at law. Upon review of relator’s petition, we observe that she did not

allege that she lacks an adequate remedy at law. Rather, relator alleged that she filed an

objection to the magistrate’s order/motion to set aside the order. Thus, we find relator

had, and has used, an adequate remedy at law to challenge the magistrate’s order by

objecting to the magistrate’s order and moving to set the order aside. Relator may then

appeal any adverse judgment issued by the Wood County Common Pleas Court.

       {¶ 19} Because we conclude that relator has an adequate remedy available to her

in the ordinary course of law, we deny her request for a writ of habeas corpus.

       {¶ 20} Accordingly, relator’s petition is dismissed on its face at relator’s costs.

       {¶ 21} It is so ordered.

6.
         {¶ 22} To the Clerk of Court: The clerk is hereby directed to immediately serve

upon all parties a copy of this dismissal of relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

and writ of prohibition in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).

                                                                          Petition dismissed,
                                                                                 writs denied.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                     JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

7.