State ex rel. Mather v. Oda
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 3907 |
| Docket Number | 2022-1242 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 2023 |
| Parties | The State ex rel. Mather et al. v. Oda, Judge, et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
1
2023-Ohio-3907
The State ex rel. Mather et al.
v.
Oda, Judge, et al.
No. 2022-1242
Supreme Court of Ohio
October 31, 2023
Submitted August 22, 2023
In Prohibition.
The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman, and Curt C. Hartman; and George M. Parker, for relators Peter Mather and Assured Administration, L.L.C, an Ohio limited-liability company.
Eberly McMahon Copetas, L.L.C, and David A. Eberly, for relator Assured Administration, L.L.C, a South Carolina limited-liability company.
David D. Hayes, Greene County Prosecuting Attorney, and Megan A. Hammond, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents.
Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham, Co., L.P.A., and Paul B. Martins, for intervening respondent Steve Yeoman.
Patsfall, Yeager & Pflum, L.L.C, and Joseph Pflum, for intervening respondent Thomas Young.
Bruns, Connell, Vollmar & Armstrong, L.L.C., Thomas B. Bruns, and Lucinda Shirooni, for intervening respondent Bethany Sarchet.
Cooper & Elliott, L.L.C., and Jeffrey T. Kenney, for intervening respondent The Greens of Kings Meadows Home Owners Association.
Garvey Shearer Nordstrom, P.S.C., John J. Garvey III, and Jason Abeln, for intervening respondent Marc Davis.
Per Curiam
{¶ 1} At issue in this original action is whether a trial court has jurisdiction to proceed on a request for attorney fees after a limited remand from a court of appeals. We conclude that the trial court lost jurisdiction after entering final judgment and that
the court of appeals' mandate did not give the trial court jurisdiction to entertain a request for attorney fees that accrued after the final judgment. Accordingly, we grant a writ of prohibition.
{¶ 2} Also pending are a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion to strike that motion and for sanctions, and a motion to strike the evidence jointly filed by respondents and the intervening respondents. We deny the motion to strike the motion for judgment on the pleadings and for sanctions, deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and grant in part and deny in part the motion to strike the jointly filed evidence.
I. BACKGROUND
{¶ 3} The relators in this case are Peter Mather and two entities named Assured Administration, L.L.C. (collectively, "Mather"). The first Assured ("Assured Ohio"), an Ohio entity, was the developer of a residential subdivision in Warren County. Peter Mather is Assured Ohio's manager. In 2017, Assured Ohio and Peter Mather filed a lawsuit in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that several homeowners in the subdivision had improperly interfered with Assured Ohio's attempt to sell a lot in the subdivision. Thomas Young, Steve Yeoman, Marc Davis, Bethany Sarchet, and The Greens of Kings Meadows Home Owners Association (collectively, the "homeowners") filed counterclaims against Assured Ohio, Peter Mather, and the other Assured, a South Carolina entity, asserting a right to a declaratory judgment holding that Assured Ohio did not have sole discretion to sell the lot and a right to attorney fees. The court granted summary judgment for the homeowners and found that they were entitled to attorney-fee awards.
{¶ 4} In its final judgment, the trial court awarded the homeowners more than $235,000 for attorney fees and other litigation expenses. Mather appealed to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. In their merit brief, the homeowners asked the court of appeals to affirm the judgment and remand the action to the trial court for
the assessment of additional attorney fees and litigation expenses incurred in the appellate process. The court of appeals affirmed but "remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc order to reflect that [Peter Mather] is a party to this action and therefore liable for payment of the attorney fees awarded." The trial court entered a nunc pro tunc order in August 2021. Mather paid the judgment in January 2022.
{¶ 5} In April 2022, the homeowners filed a motion in the trial court seeking more than $167,000 in additional attorney fees and expenses incurred in attempting to collect on the judgment and in defending the judgment on appeal. The matter was referred to Magistrate Carrie A. Heisele. In October 2022, Mather filed this original action against respondents, Magistrate Heisele and Judge Donald E. Oda II (collectively, "the common pleas court"), seeking a writ of prohibition and alleging that the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to conduct further proceedings in the underlying case.
{¶ 6} The common pleas court filed a motion to dismiss, which this court denied. 168 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2022-Ohio-4078, 198 N.E.3d 109. After the common pleas court filed an answer to Mather's complaint, this court granted an alternative writ and set a schedule for the presentation of evidence and the filing of briefs. 169 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 726. This court simultaneously granted the homeowners' motion to intervene as respondents in this action. Id.
{¶ 7} The same day this court granted the alternative writ and allowed the homeowners to intervene, the homeowners filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Mather moved to strike the homeowners' motion and for the imposition of sanctions. Mather also has moved to strike the evidence jointly filed by the common pleas court and the homeowners.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Motions
1. Motion for judgment on the pleadings and related motion to strike
{¶ 8} Mather has filed a motion to strike the homeowners' motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the homeowners filed their motion without authority. S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(B)(1) permits a respondent to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings "at the same time an answer is filed." As intervening respondents, the homeowners' answer was deemed filed when we granted their motion to intervene. Because the homeowners' motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed the same day we granted their motion to intervene, the homeowners' motion for judgment on the pleadings did not contravene S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(B)(1).
{¶ 9} Mather also argues that we should strike the homeowners' motion for judgment on the pleadings because it is "contrary to" S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05. But S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05 does not address the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We deny Mather's motion to strike and request for sanctions because no rule prohibited the homeowners from filing their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
{¶ 10} But in denying the common pleas court's motion to dismiss and granting an alternative writ, we determined that Mather's prohibition claim may have merit. See State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1, 2007-Ohio-6754, 881 N.E.2d 224, ¶ 8. We deny the homeowners' motion for judgment on the pleadings for the same reason we denied the common pleas court's motion to dismiss. See State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday, 164 Ohio St.3d 121, 2021-Ohio-194, 172 N.E.3d 114, ¶ 12 (recognizing that the standards for motions under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and Civ.R. 12(C) are similar).
2. Motion to strike evidence
{¶ 11} The common pleas court and the homeowners jointly filed evidence consisting of nine documents filed in the underlying litigation. The documents they
filed were not authenticated by affidavit, but the common pleas court and the homeowners ask us to take judicial notice of them based on their availability through online court dockets. Mather asks us to strike the evidence based on a lack of authentication. The determination of a motion to strike evidence is within our broad discretion. See State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio-4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 14.
{¶ 12} We deny Mather's motion to strike with regard to exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 of the evidentiary submission because the homeowners authenticated those documents by affidavit when they filed their motion to intervene. See State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, 164 Ohio St.3d 133, 2021-Ohio-666, 172 N.E.3d 126, ¶ 5-6 (a party need not refile evidence that was properly authenticated in an earlier filing). We deny Mather's motion to strike with regard to exhibit Nos. 8 and 9 because Mather submitted those documents as part of his own evidentiary submission. See State ex rel. Maxwell v. Brice, 167 Ohio St.3d 137, 2021-Ohio-4333, 189 N.E.3d 771, ¶ 14 (declining to strike evidence that was properly submitted by other means).
{¶ 13} That leaves only two documents-exhibit Nos. 6 and 7-for our consideration. In seeking to have these exhibits stricken, Mather relies on S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(A), which provides that any evidence not submitted through an agreed statement of facts "shall be submitted by affidavits, stipulations, depositions, and exhibits." Evidence submitted under this rule "should comport with the Rules of Evidence." State ex rel. Brenders v. Hall, 71 Ohio St.3d 632, 637, 646 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial