State ex rel. Frailey v. Wolfe, 00-2329.
| Decision Date | 18 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-2329.,00-2329. |
| Citation | 750 NE 2d 164,92 Ohio St.3d 320 |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. FRAILEY, APPELLANT, v. WOLFE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Jonathan E. Frailey, pro se.
Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brent W. Shenk, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
In November 1999, appellant, Jonathan E. Frailey, and his wife executed a settlement memorandum concerning their divorce case in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Appellee, Judge William A. Wolfe, approved this memorandum. Subsequently, Judge Wolfe approved an agreed judgment entry—decree of divorce, shared parenting decree, and shared parenting plan—that had been prepared by the attorney for Frailey's wife.
On June 1, 2000, the Court of Appeals for Licking County found that the judgment of the trial court did not accurately reflect the parties' settlement memorandum, vacated the judgment, and remanded the matter to the trial court "to reenter final judgment in accordance with the parties' Settlement Memorandum." Frailey v. Frailey (June 1, 2000), Licking App. No. 00CA24, unreported, 2000 WL 873654.
In August 2000, Frailey filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Wolfe to comply with that court's June 1, 2000 judgment and a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Wolfe from entering a judgment inconsistent with the June 1, 2000 order. On September 18, 2000, Judge Wolfe entered a judgment in the divorce case in accordance with the court of appeals' June 1, 2000 mandate. In a November memorandum, Frailey agreed that Judge Wolfe complied with the mandate of the court of appeals but asserted that Judge Wolfe should still pay for Frailey's costs in his writ action.
In November 2000, the court of appeals dismissed the cause as moot. The court of appeals also denied Frailey's request for an award of costs.
In his appeal of right, Frailey contends that the court of appeals erred in dismissing the cause as moot and in not awarding costs to him. Frailey's contentions lack merit.
"Writs of mandamus and prohibition are appropriate to require lower courts to comply with and not proceed contrary to the mandate of a superior court." Berthelot v. Dezso (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 257, 259, 714 N.E.2d 888, 890. But, as Frailey conceded in the proceedings below, Judge Wolfe subsequently complied with the mandate of the court of appeals, thereby rendering Frailey's action moot. See, e.g., State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 457, 732 N.E.2d 983, 984
()
Moreover, Civ.R. 54(D), which states that, in general, "costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs," grants trial courts discretion to order prevailing parties to bear all or part of their own costs. State ex rel. Reyna v. Natalucci-Persichetti (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 194, 198, 699 N.E.2d 76, 79. No abuse of that discretion is evident here.
In fact, the analogous Federal Rule of Civil Procedure confers similar discretionary authority on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Law Office of the Montgomery County Public Defender v. Rosencrans
...See, e.g., State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio-2054, 807 N.E.2d 357, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Frailey v. Wolfe (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 320, 321, 750 N.E.2d 164. {¶ 16} The public defender asserts that his claim is not moot because it is capable of repetition, yet evading ......
-
State ex rel. v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
...to require lower courts to comply with and not proceed contrary to the mandate of a superior court.'" State ex rel. Frailey v. Wolfe (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 320, 321, 750 N.E.2d 164, quoting Berthelot v. Dezso (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 257, 259, 714 N.E.2d {¶ 36} This precedent is, however, inapp......
- State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman
-
State v. Shaughnessy, 107403
...judge by establishing that the lower court has failed to comply with a mandate of a superior court. See State ex rel. Frailey v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 320, 321, 750 N.E.2d 164 (2001), citing Berthelot v. Dezso, 86 Ohio St.3d 257, 259, 714 N.E.2d 888 (1999) (stating that a writ of mandamus is......