State ex rel. Greene County Board of Commissioners et al. v. O’Diam, Judge

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio considered a prohibition action concerning a probate judge's orders requiring Greene County to designate a courtroom already controlled by the common pleas court's general division for probate use. The court held that a judge lacks inherent authority to take control of courthouse space already under the control of another court or division and granted a peremptory writ prohibiting enforcement of the relevant orders. The writ did not extend to the orders requiring payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses, leaving that issue for a related mandamus case.

Holdings

1. The general-division judges were not entitled to intervene as of right because the existing relators adequately represented their interests, and permissive intervention was properly denied because it would unduly delay adjudication.
2. A relator seeking a writ of prohibition must establish that the respondent exercised judicial power, that the exercise was unauthorized by law, and that denial of the writ would result in injury for which no adequate ordinary legal remedy exists.
3. A judge does not have inherent authority, and therefore lacks jurisdiction, to issue an order allowing the judge to take control of courthouse space when that space is already under the control of another court or a different division of the common pleas court.
4. The writ of prohibition does not invalidate or prohibit enforcement of the portions of Judge O’Diam’s orders requiring payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses because that issue was not specifically contested and remains subject to consideration in the related mandamus action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the general-division judges should be permitted to intervene as relators under Civ.R. 24.
2. Whether the prohibition complaint stated a claim where the respondent judge possessed inherent authority over funding and courthouse facilities.
3. Whether a common-pleas-court judge has inherent authority to order the transfer of courthouse space already controlled by another court or division of the common pleas court.
4. Whether the writ should prohibit enforcement of the respondent’s orders concerning Courtroom 3 while leaving unresolved the validity of orders requiring payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Disposition

writ_granted