State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover
| Decision Date | 03 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2450,98-2450 |
| Citation | 84 Ohio St.3d 530,705 N.E.2d 1227 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. WEISS v. HOOVER, Judge, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Relator, Mark R. Weiss, leased certain property in Twinsburg, Ohio, to Busch Entertainment Corporation, d.b.a. Sea World of Ohio ("Busch"). Busch failed to pay $6,746.40, which Weiss claimed as additional rent under the terms of the lease. On October 5, 1998, Weiss notified Busch to leave the premises because of Busch's alleged default.
On October 19, 1998, Busch filed a complaint in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas for a judgment declaring Busch's right to continued use of the property free of any further demand by Weiss to pay the claimed additional rent. On October 21, before being served with a copy of Busch's declaratory judgment complaint, Weiss filed a complaint in respondent Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court against Busch for forcible entry and detainer and breach of contract. Weiss requested restitution of the premises and damages in the amount of $6,746.40.
On November 5, respondent Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court Judge Kim Hoover granted Busch's motion to stay the municipal court action brought by Weiss, pending resolution of Busch's common pleas court declaratory judgment action, and transferred the municipal court action to the common pleas court to be consolidated with that case for further disposition.
Shortly thereafter, Weiss filed this action for a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Hoover and the municipal court to proceed on his forcible entry and detainer claim. 1 Respondents did not file any timely response to Weiss's complaint.
This cause is now before the court for its determination under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5).
Michael D. Baker, Columbus, for relator.
Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), we must determine whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or a peremptory writ is appropriate. Under the applicable standard, if it appears beyond doubt that relator is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, a peremptory writ should issue. State ex rel. Dist. 1199, Health Care & Soc. Serv. Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Lawrence Cty. Gen. Hosp. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 351, 353, 699 N.E.2d 1281, 1282.
Weiss claims that he is entitled to a writ of procedendo. In order to be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Weiss must establish a clear legal right to require respondents to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of respondents to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d 899, 900. A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 65, 671 N.E.2d 24, 26. For example, a writ of procedendo will issue requiring a judge to proceed to final judgment if the judge erroneously stayed the proceeding based on a pending case that has no effect on the court's jurisdiction to proceed. State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 180, 184, 652 N.E.2d 742, 745. For the following reasons, Weiss is entitled to a peremptory writ.
First, Judge Hoover and the municipal court erroneously stayed Weiss's forcible entry and detainer action. "To allow the Municipal Court the discretion to stay proceedings in this cause would be to defeat the purpose of the forcible entry and detainer statutes (i.e., immediate possession), to permit their circumvention by merely bringing title into question in a collateral suit in common pleas court, and to deny through successive appeals the relief they were intended to provide." State ex rel. Carpenter v. Warren Mun. Court (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 208, 210, 15 O.O.3d 225, 227, 400 N.E.2d 391, 393. In Carpenter, we granted a writ of procedendo ordering a municipal court to proceed in a forcible entry and detainer action that it had stayed pending the outcome of a previously filed common pleas court action involving the same parties and raising an issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State Ex Rel. Sawicki v. Lucas County Court Of Common Pleas .
...of the judge to try the case, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 531-532, 705 N.E.2d 1227. A “ ‘writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnec......
-
State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson
...X(5), we must determine whether an alternative writ, peremptory writ, or dismissal is appropriate. State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 531, 705 N.E.2d 1227, 1228. Dismissal is appropriate if it appears beyond doubt, after presuming the truth of all material factual alle......
-
State ex rel. O'Malley v. Russo
...a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment." State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover , 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999). To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, O'Malley must show a clear legal right to require Judge Russo to proc......
-
State ex rel. Tri Eagle Fuels L.L.C. v. Dawson
...authority holds that the jurisdictional-priority rule does not necessarily apply to eviction actions. In State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999), the landlord of commercial property indicated to the lessee that the failure to pay additional rents rendered th......