Commercial Sav. Bank v. Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas
| Decision Date | 24 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1631,87-1631 |
| Citation | 35 Ohio St.3d 192,519 N.E.2d 647 |
| Parties | . Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Relators, Commercial Savings Bank ("CSB"), Paul A. Burson, Linden J. Beck, and Bruce J. Beck, assert that on June 18, 1986, CSB took a cognovit judgment against respondent William J. Walton in the amount of $514,964.82 and against respondent Joyce D. Walton in the amount of $408,986.74 in the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, case No. 86-CV-46.
In a subsequent case, No. 86-CV-53, CSB filed a foreclosure suit to sell three parcels of real estate which secured the promissory notes on which CSB had taken judgment. CSB was granted summary judgment and the three parcels were ordered sold at a sheriff's sale.
On August 14, 1986, William and Joyce Walton filed a counterclaim in the foreclosure action alleging that CSB fraudulently seized certain farm equipment. Thereafter, CSB filed its own counterclaim against William and Joyce Walton for fraudulently transferring the equipment to a third party. CSB was subsequently granted a default judgment on its counterclaim.
On October 14, 1986, William and Joyce Walton filed a motion to vacate the judgments in case Nos. 86-CV-46 and 86-CV-53. This motion was denied. Respondents appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals for Wyandot County, and also appealed the judgment in case No. 86-CV-53, the foreclosure action.
Between November 1986 and August 1987, William and Joyce Walton and their sons, respondents Jonathan, Stephan, and Frederick, separately or in groups, initiated numerous actions in "trespass" and/or other relief against CSB and others. In addition, William and Joyce Walton, and William, individually, filed "common law" liens against CSB in the amounts of $15,000,000, and $250,000; and Stephan Walton filed a $125,000 "common law" lien against CSB. The court ordered all three liens stricken from the recorder's office. However, Stephan subsequently refiled his lien twice.
The Waltons have instituted at least five separate actions against the various judges involved in the matters underlying this prohibition action. Respondents alleged, inter alia, that the judges evinced bias and prejudice, and were involved in a conspiracy to deny respondents their constitutional rights.
Relators are before this court seeking the allowance of a writ of prohibition against the respondent Court of Common Pleas of Wyandot County and an injunction against the Waltons. Respondents filed motions to dismiss essentially on the grounds that relators have failed to state a cause of action.
Burson & Beck, Paul A. Burson, Linden J. Beck and Bruce J. Beck, Carey, for relators.
William J. Walton, Joyce D. Walton, Frederick W. Walton, Stephan W. Walton and Jonathan S. Walton, respondents, pro se.
In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, relators must establish: (1) that the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) that the refusal of the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. State, ex rel. Starner v. DeHoff (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 163, 164, 18 OBR 219, 220, 480 N.E.2d 449, 450; State ex rel. Northern Ohio Tel. Co. v. Winter (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 6, 8, 52 O.O.2d 29, 30, 260 N.E.2d 827, 828.
Further, this court has allowed a writ of prohibition when a party has engaged in a continuing and vexatious abuse of the judicial process. State, ex rel. Stark v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 324, 31 OBR 599, 511 N.E.2d 115.
The record here clearly indicates that the Waltons have engaged in a continuing and vexatious abuse of process. Respondents, either separately or in groups, have filed, one after the other, complaints in "trespass" et al. which, except for the name of the plaintiff, seek the same or related relief. Likewise, the filing and re-filing of "common law" liens by respondents, as well as numerous challenges to nearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steffen
...actions in that case constituted such circumstances. We reached a similar holding in Commercial Savings Bank v. Wyandot Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 192, 519 N.E.2d 647. In that case, certain individuals had initiated numerous repetitive civil actions seeking the same or......
-
Roberts v. County of Mahoning, No. 4:03 CV 2329.
...of prohibition to prevent some future action that a court is not about to take. Commercial Say. Bank v. Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 192, 194, 519 N.E.2d 647. We cannot enjoin the respondent from issuing this kind of order in the future because we do not have o......
-
State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler
...there. {¶ 21} Prohibition is also a proper remedy to prevent vexatious abuse of process. See Commercial Savs. Bank v. Wyandot Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 35 Ohio St.3d 192, 519 N.E.2d 647 (1988) ; State ex rel. Stark v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 31 Ohio St.3d 324, 511 N.E.2d 115 ......
-
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Louden
...proceeding where there is a case pending before that particular court." (Emphasis added.) Commercial Sav. Bank v. Wyandot Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 192, 194, 519 N.E.2d 647, 649. Here, the juvenile court has apparently remanded DiGian to the custody of the Department ......