State ex rel. Harris v. Horvath - 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

[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Horvath, 105 Ohio St.3d 185, 2005-Ohio-1149.]

THE STATE EX REL. HARRIS, APPELLANT, v. HORVATH, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Horvath, 105 Ohio St.3d 185, 2005-Ohio-1149.]
Mandamus -- R.C. 2717.01 name-change proceeding -- Indigent plaintiff not
entitled to have publication costs waived by probate court and taxed as
costs.
(No. 2004-1332 -- Submitted March 2, 2005 -- Decided March 30, 2005.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 03CA008403.
____________________

Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On October 10, 2003, appellant, Matthew Scott Harris, an inmate
at Mansfield Correctional Institution, filed an application in the Lorain County
Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division to change the name of his minor son.
On that date, appellee, Judge Frank J. Horvath of the probate court, approved
Harris's poverty affidavit, waived the filing fee, and ordered Harris to cause
notice of the name-change application to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in Lorain County. Harris received a quoted price of $52.20 for the
required publication.
{¶ 2} In November 2003, Harris moved to waive the publication fees and
tax them as costs. Harris claimed that he was entitled to have the probate court
clerk pay for the required publication because he is indigent. On November 17,
2003, Judge Horvath denied the motion.
{¶ 3} In December 2003, Harris filed a petition in the Court of Appeals
for Lorain County for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Horvath1 to order the

1. The mandamus petition also requested that a writ be issued against the clerk of the probate
court. Harris claims that because the court of appeals did not address that claim, we are required
to vacate the court of appeals' order and remand the cause for disposition of all of his claims.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
required notice by publication in the name-change proceeding and to order the
expense to be taxed as costs. Judge Horvath submitted an answer, and the parties
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment. On July 8, 2004, the court of
appeals granted Judge Horvath's motion, denied Harris's motion, and denied the
writ.
{¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
{¶ 5} Harris claims that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of
mandamus. In order to be entitled to the requested writ, Harris had to establish a
clear legal right to waiver of the prepayment of publication fees, a clear legal duty
on the part of Judge Horvath to provide the waiver, and the lack of an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Savage v. Caltrider, 100
Ohio St.3d 363, 2003-Ohio-6806, 800 N.E.2d 358, ¶ 8.
{¶ 6} For the following reasons, Harris cannot establish either a clear
legal right to the requested relief or a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of
Judge Horvath to provide it.
{¶ 7} First, Judge Horvath has no duty to waive the prepayment of
publication or filing fees associated with a name-change proceeding under R.C.
2717.01. See State ex rel. Robinson v. Clark (1994), 91 Ohio App.3d 627, 629,
632 N.E.2d 1393 (relator not entitled to writ of mandamus because he had not
demonstrated either "a clear legal right entitling him to have the fees or the
hearing associated with his application for a name change waived" or "a clear
legal duty on behalf of respondent to waive the fees or to waive the hearing"); In
re Paxson (June 30, 1992), Scioto App. No. 91 CA 2008, 1992 WL 154139
(name-change applicant not entitled to have probate court waive publication
requirements of R.C. 2717.01[A]).

Judge Horvath did not specifically respond to this argument in his merit brief. Nevertheless, it is
evident from the website for the Lorain County Probate Court that Judge Horvath also serves as
the clerk of the probate court. http://loraincounty.com/probate. Therefore, Harris's claim is
meritless.
2

January Term, 2005
{¶ 8} Second, although we have held that an indigent plaintiff in a
divorce action may require the appropriate public officials to effect service of
process by publication without prepayment by the indigent plaintiff of the costs of
publication, that access is generally limited to the essential exercise of
fundamental constitutional rights, e.g., rights affecting the marital relationship.
Cf. State ex rel. Blevins v. Mowrey (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 20, 543 N.E.2d 99,
syllabus; see, generally, 3 Rotunda & Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law:
Substance and Procedure (3 Ed.1999) 196, Section 17.10 ("where access to the
judicial process is not essential to the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights
the state will be free to allocate access to the judicial machinery on any system or
classification which is not totally arbitrary. Thus, filing fee requirement[s] for
such actions may be enforced so as to bar indigents from using the judicial
process unless the fees are totally arbitrary"). Harris does not claim that an
incarcerated prisoner has a fundamental constitutional right to change the name of
a child who is not in his custody.
{¶ 9} Finally, Harris's reliance on R.C. 7.13 is misplaced. R.C. 7.13,
which allows publication costs of certain required legal notices to be part of the
costs in a case or proceeding, does not expressly preclude probate courts from
ordering the prepayment of publication costs under R.C. 2717.01. See Blevins, 45
Ohio St.3d at 22, 543 N.E.2d 99 (court cites R.C. 7.13 but does not base holding
on it). If the General Assembly had intended to bar such orders for prepayment, it
would have so provided. Cf. In re Turkowski (D.C.App.1999), 741 A.2d 406,
407 (court applied statute permitting waiver of prepayment of fees and costs by
indigent person).
{¶ 10} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the
writ of mandamus. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Harris's motion to strike appellee's merit brief and amended merit brief is moot.
Judgment affirmed.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR,
O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.
___________________

Matthew Scott Harris, pro se.

Gary C. Bennett, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and D. Chris Cook,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
_____________________
4