Andolsek v. Bartolotta

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY

YOLANDA ANDOLSEK, CASE NO. 2026-L-0038

Relator,

Original Action for Writ of Procedendo - vs -

JUDGE MARK J. BARTOLOTTA, Respondent.

PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: August 31, 2026

Judgment: Petition dismissed

Yolanda Andolsek, pro se, 29236 Eddy Road, Willoughby Hills, OH 44092 (Relator).

Charles E. Couslon, Lake County Prosecutor, and Eric J. Foisel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} In this original action, relator, Yolanda Andolsek, pro se, filed a writ of procedendo to compel respondent, Lake County Court of Common Pleas Probate Judge Mark J. Bartolotta, to rule on a motion she filed on April 7, 2026, in In re Estate of Paul P. Andolsek, probate court No. 2014 ES 0117. The deceased in the underlying matter is Andolsek’s father.

{¶2} Judge Bartolotta filed a motion to dismiss Andolsek’s petition pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which Andolsek opposed.

{¶3} We find Andolsek’s petition is moot since the probate court set a hearing to rule on her motion shortly after she filed her petition and subsequently ruled on her motion in a judgment entry filed July 10, 2026. Accordingly, we grant Judge Bartolotta’s motion to dismiss and dismiss Andolsek’s petition.

Substantive and Procedural History

{¶4} In March 2014, Andolsek, as the successor executor named in her father’s will, initiated the underlying action to settle his estate. In 2015, by agreement of the parties, the court appointed a third party to serve as administrator of the estate. Since that time, Andolsek, both pro se and through counsel, has filed a plethora of motions and letters in the trial court as well as appeals in this court concerning the administration of the estate. See, e.g., In re Estate of Andolsek, 2025-Ohio-5286 (11th Dist.), (affirming trial court’s denial of her motion to remove administrator); In re Estate of Andolsek, 2017- Ohio-893 (11th Dist.) (dismissing appeal from denial of motion to reconsider order overruling motion to remove executor for lack of final appealable order); In re Estate of Andolsek, 2018-Ohio-1211 (11th Dist.) (dismissing appeal for lack of final appealable order because judgment entry did not dispose of all claims); In re Estate of Andolsek, 2025-Ohio-511 (11th Dist.) (affirming judgment overruling Andolsek’s objections to the sixth partial accounting for the estate). Andolsek also filed several affidavits of disqualification against the probate court judge in the Supreme Court of Ohio. See In re Disqualification of Bartolotta, 2016-Ohio-8585.

{¶5} In her petition, Andolsek contends she filed multiple motions that are “essential to the administration of the estate;” namely, a January 6, 2026 “Motion to Compel Fiduciary to Personally Fund and Complete Necessary Repairs,” a January 21,

PAGE 2 OF 6

2026 “Motion for Clarification Regarding Fiduciary Authority,” a February 3, 2026 “Motion to Compel Production of Documents,” a March 3, 2026 “Motion to Vacate Void Inventory Sanctions and Contempt Orders,” a March 23, 2026 “Motion for Ruling on Pending Motions and Request for Status Conference,” and an April 7, 2026 “Emergency Motion for Immediate Roof Stabilization.” In her prayer for relief, Andolsek requests this court issue a writ of procedendo ordering Judge Bartolotta to rule on the April 7, 2026 “Emergency Motion for Immediate Roof Stabilization.”

{¶6} In his motion to dismiss, Judge Bartolotta contends Andolsek’s petition must be denied since the probate court set the pending motions for a hearing on May 19. He explained Andolsek filed two additional motions after receiving notice of the hearing, seeking a “clarification” of the scope of the hearing and requesting a continuance of the hearing, which the court granted. He further argued the docket reflects the court’s active management of Andolsek’s father’s estate since its inception.

Writ of Procedendo

{¶7} “‘A writ of procedendo is an extraordinary remedy in the form of an order from a higher tribunal directing a lower tribunal to proceed to judgment.’” State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 2021-Ohio-1121, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Mignella v. Indus. Comm., 2019-Ohio-463, ¶ 7. “‘A writ of procedendo may be used to compel an inferior, dilatory court to proceed to a final judgment.’” Id., quoting State ex rel. O’Malley v. Russo, 2019-Ohio-1698 ¶ 32. “The writ does not instruct the lower court as to what the judgment should be; rather, it merely instructs the lower court to issue a judgment.” Id., citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462 (1995). For a writ of procedendo to issue in this matter, Andolsek must establish (1) a clear legal

PAGE 3 OF 6

right to require Judge Bartolotta to proceed, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the Judge to proceed, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Martin v. McCormick, 2026-Ohio-568, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Dodson v. Phipps, 2024-Ohio-4928, ¶ 13.

{¶8} “‘In order to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in relator’s favor. Civ.R. 12(B)(6); State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581 (1996).’” State ex rel. Hull v. Culotta, 2018-Ohio-2145, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 326 (1998).

{¶9} A review of the active docket in the underlying matter reveals Andolsek’s petition is moot since the probate court has issued a ruling on her April 7, 2026 motion. On May 6, 2026, shortly after Andolsek filed her petition, the court set a hearing to rule on all pending motions on May 19, 2026. Several days later, Andolsek requested a 45- day continuance of the hearing, which the court granted. Andolsek obtained counsel who filed an appearance with the court on June 29, 2026, and the motion hearing was held on July 9, 2026. The following day the trial court filed a judgment entry memorializing the hearing and referring the matter to mediation upon agreement of the parties.

{¶10} “Procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh, 2020-Ohio-1540, ¶ 6. When a relator seeks to compel the issuance of a judgment entry through a writ of procedendo and the

PAGE 4 OF 6

judge issues the entry, the procedendo claim is moot. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hibbler v. O’Neill, 2020-Ohio-1070, ¶ 8.” Bechtel, 2021-Ohio-1121, ¶ 9.

{¶11} For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bartolotta’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Andolsek’s petition for a writ of procedendo is dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, P.J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur.

PAGE 5 OF 6

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the Per Curiam Opinion of this court, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and relator’s petition for a writ of procedendo is dismissed.

Costs to be taxed against relator.

PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,

concurs

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,

concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 6 OF 6