State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Enyart et al., Appellants, v. O'Neill, Judge,
Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill (1995), Ohio
St.3d .]
Prohibition -- Writ prohibiting judge from considering merits
of appeal of an arbitration decision not allowed, when.
(No. 94-594 -- Submitted February 21, 1995 -- Decided
April 5, 1995.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.
93APD10-1424.
Appellants, William and Marilyn Enyart, were plaintiffs in
an action in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court against
William Enyart's employer, Columbus Metropolitan Area Community
Action Organization ("CMACAO"). William Enyart claimed that
CMACAO had wrongfully discharged him in retaliation for filing
a workers' compensation claim. The case was referred to
arbitration, and in August 1992, an arbitration panel issued a
decision in favor of appellant William Enyart in the amount of
$23,522.06.
CMACAO filed a notice of appeal from the arbitration
decision in the common pleas court, but failed to include a
certificate of service as required by Civ.R. 5 and Loc.R. 19.01
of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. On February 16,
1993, appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge
Deborah P. O'Neill, entered judgment dismissing CMACAO's appeal
on the basis of its defective notice of appeal. On March 5,
1993, CMACAO filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the
judgment dismissing the appeal.
On April 27, 1993, Judge O'Neill issued an oral decision
granting CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B) motion and vacating her prior
judgment dismissing the appeal. By nunc pro tunc entries filed
September 17 and 24, 1993, Judge O'Neill's decision granting
CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B) motion was journalized. The basis of
the ruling was appellants' counsel's statement that she had
been aware prior to the scheduled trial date in common pleas
court that an appeal from the arbitration decision had been
filed.
On October 14, 1993, appellants filed a notice of appeal

from Judge O'Neill's decision granting CMACAO's Civ.R. 60(B)
motion. On the same date, appellants filed a complaint in the
Court of Appeals for Franklin County seeking a writ of
prohibition to preclude Judge O'Neill from proceeding further
on the appeal from the arbitration decision. On October 20,
1993, Judge O'Neill proceeded to the merits of CMACAO's appeal
and issued a decision granting summary judgment in favor of
CMACAO. On January 27, 1994, the Court of Appeals for Franklin
County denied appellants' complaint for a writ of prohibition.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of
right.

Brenda B. Alleman, for appellants.
Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Elizabeth A. Scott, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
appellee.

Per Curiam. In order to obtain a writ of prohibition,
appellants had the burden of proving that Judge O'Neill was
about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority, that
exercise of this power was unauthorized by law, and that they
had no other adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Keenan v.
Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119, 121.
At the time appellants filed their prohibition action in the
court of appeals, Judge O'Neill was about to exercise judicial
authority to consider the merits of CMACAO's appeal of the
arbitration decision. However, the court of appeals denied the
writ on the basis that appellants possessed an adequate remedy
by way of appeal.
Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a
court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine
its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging the court's
jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law by appeal. Worrell
v. Athens Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 491,
495-496, 633 N.E.2d 1130, 1134; State ex rel. Sanquily v. Lucas
Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 78, 573 N.E.2d
606. Although appellants, in a rambling argument on appeal,
contend that Judge O'Neill patently and unambiguously lacked
jurisdiction to grant the Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from
judgment, this argument is premised on their claims that the
motion was "frivolous" and was made without "any valid
reasons." In effect, appellants contend that Judge O'Neill
abused her discretion in granting the motion and vacating the
judgment.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 60, a trial court retains jurisdiction
to grant relief from its own judgment. See Carlson v. Kalafut
(May 24, 1993), Mahoning App. No. 92 C.A. 52, unreported.
Prohibition does not lie to prevent a merely erroneous decision
by the court. State ex rel. Soley v. Dorrell (1994), 69 Ohio
St.3d 514, 516, 634 N.E.2d 215, 216. In that Judge O'Neill
possessed jurisdiction to rule on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, the
fact that she may have exercised that jurisdiction erroneously
does not give rise to extraordinary relief by prohibition. The
extraordinary remedy of prohibition may not be employed before
trial on the merits, as a substitute for appeal to review
"'mere errors, or irregularities in the proceedings of a court

having proper jurisdiction.'" State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield
Lake (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 109, 637 N.E.2d 319, 324,
citing State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d
134, 137, 63 O.O.2d 229, 231, 296 N.E.2d 526, 528; see, also,
State ex rel. Gyurcsik v. Angelotta (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 345,
4 O.O.3d 482, 364 N.E.2d 284 (writ of prohibition denied where
trial court granted relief from judgment based on Civ.R.
60[B][5]).
In denying the requested writ of prohibition, the court of
appeals noted:
"*** The trial court granted relief from a prior judgment
pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Relators contend the trial court had
no jurisdiction to grant a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Even assuming
relators to be correct, what would be involved is an erroneous
exercise of jurisdiction, not a total lack of jurisdiction to
act. Relators contend that respondent was 'without
jurisdiction whatsoever to act.' They set forth nothing more
than the mere assertion and do not explain any basis for the
assertion. Rather, relators allege that the adverse party
failed to set forth any valid reasons for respondent to grant
the Civ.R. 60(B) motion. If that be the situation, it is
clearly an issue for appeal, which affords an adequate remedy.
"In short, relators have an adequate remedy at law by way
of appeal of the order granting relief from judgment by
vacating the earlier judgment in favor of relators."
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that Judge O'Neill
did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to grant
the motion for relief from judgment, and appeal was an adequate
remedy which precluded prohibition relief. In fact, appellants
appealed both Judge O'Neill's judgment granting CMACAO's motion
for relief from judgment and her subsequent entry on the
merits. The appeal on the former was dismissed due to a
failure by appellants to timely file a brief. Appellants'
latter appeal concluded with a reversal in their favor. Enyart
v. Columbus Metro. Area Community Action Org. (Sept. 6, 1994),
Franklin App. No. 93APE12-1658, unreported. A discretionary
appeal from that judgment was dismissed by this court in
February 1995. 71 Ohio St.3d 1456, 644 N.E.2d 1028.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of
the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.