Court Opinion

ID: 9893309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 16:11:58.097471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:13.182562
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Fischer Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. Scott, 2023-Ohio-3891.]

                                COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                               EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. FISCHER
ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,                                    :

                 Relator,                                 :
                                                                               No. 113237
                 v.                                       :

JUDGE W. MONA SCOTT,                                      :

                 Respondent.                              :

                                 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: WRIT GRANTED
                 DATED: October 24, 2023

                                            Writ of Procedendo
                                            Order No. 568635

                                              Appearances:

                 Powers Friedman Linn, PLL, Robert G. Friedman, and
                 Thomas P. Owen, for relator.

                 Mark Griffin, Cleveland Director of Law, for respondent.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

                 Fischer Asset Management, LLC (“Fischer”), the relator, has filed a

complaint for a writ of mandamus. Fischer seeks an order from this court that

requires Judge W. Mona Scott, the respondent, to issue a writ of restitution and an
order of eviction in the forcible entry and detainer action that is currently pending

in Fischer Asset Mgt., LLC v. Martez D. Wells, Cleveland M.C. No. 2023-CVG-

004911.

             Although Fischer requests a writ of mandamus, we employ our plenary

authority to sua sponte convert the request for a writ of mandamus into a complaint

for procedendo. State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Louden, 91 Ohio St.3d 61, 741

N.E.2d 517 (2001). Procedendo shall issue when a court has either refused to render

a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed entering judgment. State ex rel. R.W.

Sidley, Inc. v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113, 2003-Ohio-5101, 796 N.E.2d 929.

“[P]rocedendo is more appropriate, since ‘an inferior court’s refusal or failure to

timely dispose of a pending action is the ill a writ of procedendo is designed to

remedy.’” State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 35, 656 N.E.332 (1995),

quoting State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 110, 637 N.E.2d 319

(1994). For the following reason, we grant a peremptory writ of procedendo on

behalf of Fischer.

I. Facts and Procedural History

             The following facts are gleaned from the complaint for procedendo and

the docket maintained in Fischer Asset Mgt., LLC v. Martez D. Wells, Cleveland

M.C. No. 2023-CVG-004911:1

      1 This court is permitted to take judicial notice of court filings that are readily

accessible from the internet. In re Helfrich, 5th Dist. Licking No. 13CA20, 2014-Ohio-
1933, ¶ 35, citing State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798,
974 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 8, 10 (court can take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public
records accessible from the internet).
      (1) Fischer is the landlord of residential property located at 3161 West
      31st Street, Cleveland, Ohio, that is rented at the rate of $800 per
      month to a tenant;
      (2) the tenant did not make monthly rental payments after March
      2023;
      (3) on April 28, 2023, Fischer served the tenant with a “3 day notice to
      vacate” pursuant to R.C. 1923.04;
      (4) on May 4, 2023, Fischer file a complaint for forcible entry and
      detainer;
      (5) on June 30, 2023, a hearing was held at which time Fischer and the
      tenant entered into an agreement which provided that the tenant would
      be allowed to remain in possession of the rental property so long as past
      due rent was tendered in the amount of $2,000 by July 3, 2023, and
      $1,600 by July 26, 2023;
      (6) tenant failed to make the agreed payments;
      (7) on July 27, 2023, a magistrate issued a decision that recommended
      judgment for Fischer on the claim of forcible entry and detainer and
      writ of restitution;
      (8) on July 27, 2023, Judge Scott approved and confirmed the
      magistrate’s decision and ordered judgment for Fischer on the claim of
      forcible entry and detainer and a writ of restitution;
      (9) on July 31, 2023, Fischer filed a praecipe for a writ of restitution;
      (10) on October 2, 2023, the underlying action was continued, at the
      request of Judge Scott, to December 11, 2023.

II. Legal Analysis

             To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Fischer must demonstrate a clear

legal right to require Judge Scott to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge

Scott to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the

law. State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 671 N.E.2d 24 (1996); State ex

rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 650

N.E.2d 899 (1995). If it appears beyond doubt that Fischer is entitled to a writ of

procedendo, a peremptory writ shall be issued. State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio, 81 Ohio
St.3d 297, 691 N.E.2d 253 (1998); State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder,

76 Ohio St.3d 580, 669 N.E.2d 835, 839 (1996).

             Forcible entry and detainer actions are governed by R.C. Chapter 1923.

The purpose of the forcible entry and detainer statutes is to provide a summary,

extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery of possession of real property.

Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Jackson, 67 Ohio St.2d 129, 131, 423 N.E.2d 177

(1981); 24 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 455, Forcible Entry and Detainer, Section 2.

“‘[G]iven its summary nature, the drafters of the Rules of Civil Procedure were

careful to avoid encrusting this special remedy with time consuming procedure

tending to destroy its efficacy.’” Miele v. Ribovich, 90 Ohio St.3d 439, 441, 739

N.E.2d 333 (2000), quoting Jackson at 131.

             R.C. 1923.02(A)(9) creates a cause of action for forcible entry and

detainer “[a]gainst tenants who have breached an obligation imposed upon them by

a written rental agreement.” It is undisputed that the tenant breached the terms of

the lease by failing to pay rent. R.C. 1923.04(A) requires the landlord give the tenant

notice of the eviction action “three or more days before beginning the action, by

certified mail, return receipt requested, or by handing a written copy of the notice to

the defendant in person, or by leaving it at the defendant’s usual place of abode or

at the premises from which the defendant is sought to be evicted.” Fischer provided

the tenant with the required three-day notice. Also, the facts demonstrate that

Fischer complied with all of the requirements of R.C. 1923.01 et seq. for immediate

possession of the real property currently occupied by the tenant. Fischer is entitled
to a peremptory writ of procedendo that requires Judge Scott to immediately issue

a writ of restitution and an order of eviction.

III. Duties Under R.C. Chapter 1923

             R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that if the judge finds the complaint for

forcible entry and detainer to be true, the judge shall render a general judgment

against the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and

costs of suit. Once again, this court is perplexed by the conduct of Judge Scott that

seems to thwart the purpose of R.C. Chapter 1923 by not providing a summary,

extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery of possession of Fischer’s real

property. In fact, seven prior complaints for mandamus or procedendo, plus an

appeal, have been filed with this court in the past year that demonstrate Judge

Scott’s delay in issuing writs of restitution and orders of evictions:

      (1) Shaker House LLC v. Daniel, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111183, 2022-
      Ohio-2778 (8/11/22 — trial court judgment reversed, and Judge Scott
      ordered to grant forcible entry and detainer to landlord);
      (2) State ex rel. Shaker House, LLC v. Scott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
      111952 (9/29/22 — complaint for mandamus voluntarily dismissed
      because forcible entry and detainer granted in Cleveland M.C. No. 21-
      CVG-008203);
      (3) State ex rel. Glenville Plaza Holding, LLC v. Scott, 8th Dist.
      Cuyahoga No. 112264 (2/15/23 — complaint for mandamus declared
      moot because forcible entry and detainer granted in Cleveland M.C. No.
      2022-CVG-007026);
      (4) State ex rel. Shaker Hts. Apts. Owner, LLC v. Scott, 8th Dist.
      Cuyahoga No. 112587, 2023-Ohio-1901 (6/2/23 — complaint for
      procedendo and mandamus declared moot because forcible entry and
      detainer adjudicated in 28 Cleveland M.C. cases);
      (5) State ex rel. Shaker Hts. Apts. Owner v. Scott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
      No. 112769, 2023-Ohio-2589 (7-21-23 — procedendo and mandamus
      ordered to resolve forcible entry and detainer action in Cleveland M.C.
      No. 2023-CVG-002960);
       (6) State ex rel. Cleveland 2, LLC v. Scott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
       112961, 2023-Ohio-3066 (8/25/23 — procedendo and mandamus
       ordered to resolve forcible entry and detainer action in Cleveland M.C.
       No. 2023-CVG-003640);
       (7) State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
       112962 (8/7/23 — procedendo and mandamus moot because tenant
       vacated premises);
       (8) State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
       113029, 2023-Ohio-33484 (9/25/23 — procedendo and mandamus
       ordered to resolve forcible entry and detainer action in Cleveland M.C.
       No. 2023-CVG-003825).

                The continued conduct of Judge Scott, by failing to provide a summary,

extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery of possession of real property, in

forcible entry and detainer actions, may be the result of the failure to appreciate the

statutory requirements of R.C. Chapter 1923 or a misunderstanding of the purpose

of R.C. Chapter 1923 by Judge Scott’s staff. Regardless, Judge Scott is placed on

notice that the continued delay in granting writs of restitution and orders of eviction,

when mandated, may result in this court assuming such failures to act are

intentional.2

2  Canons 1 and 2 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct requires all judges to uphold and
promote independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and to avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The implementation of judicial discipline
is to protect the general public, guarantee the evenhanded administration of justice, and
maintain the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Disciplinary Counsel v.
Carr, 170 Ohio St.3d 401, 2022-Ohio-3633, 214 N.E.3d 496; Disciplinary Counsel v.
Horton, 158 Ohio St.3d 76, 2019-Ohio-4139, 140 N.E.3d 561; Disciplinary Counsel v.
Burge, 157 Ohio St.3d 203, 2019-Ohio-3205, 134 N.E.3d 153. The continued reluctance of
Judge Scott, to provide a summary, extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery of
possession of real property, in forcible entry and detainer actions, may result in the referral
of her conduct to the Disciplinary Counsel of the Board of Professional Conduct for
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
IV. Conclusion

             We sua sponte grant a peremptory writ of procedendo and order that

Judge Scott immediately issue a writ of restitution and an order of eviction on behalf

of Fischer in Fischer Asset Mgt., LLC v. Martez D. Wells, Cleveland M.C.

No. 2023-CVG-004911.

              Costs to Judge Scott. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all

parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as

required by Civ.R. 58(B). In addition, the clerk of courts shall forthwith deliver a

copy of this opinion to Judge Scott and shall note upon the docket the date and time

of delivery of the opinion to Judge Scott.

             Peremptory writ of procedendo granted.

______________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR