Fritsche v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas

2026 Ohio 429

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 31608
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Fritsche v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2026-Ohio-429.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

THOMAS J. FRITSCHE

Relator

v. C.A. No. 31608

JUDGE, SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROHIBITION

Respondent

Dated: February 11, 2026

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Relator, Thomas Fritsche, has petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition against

Respondent, the Summit County Domestic Relations Court. Mr. Fritsche seeks to prevent the

Domestic Relations Court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction in his divorce action. The

Domestic Relations Court has moved to dismiss the petition. Mr. Fritsche has filed a memorandum

in opposition as well as a supplemental memorandum in support of his petition. He also has filed

two emergency motions for expedited review. For the following reasons, we grant the motion to

dismiss.

{¶2} When this Court reviews a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), we must

presume that all of the factual allegations in the complaint are true and make all reasonable

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489,

490 (1994). A complaint can only be dismissed when, having viewed the complaint in this way, 2

it appears beyond doubt that the relator can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to the relief

requested. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 389, 2008-Ohio-4787, ¶ 7. With this standard

in mind, we consider Mr. Fritsche’s petition.

{¶3} The petition alleges that the Summit County Domestic Relations Court has

exercised its jurisdiction in Mr. Fritsche’s divorce case in violation of Ohio’s venue statute. It

alleges that Mr. Fritsche’s wife did not reside in Summit County for at least ninety days before she

filed for divorce there. According to the petition, the Domestic Relations Court has refused to

consider Mr. Fritsche’s objections to the case being improperly venued. He seeks a writ of

prohibition to stop the Summit County Domestic Relations Court from taking any further action

in his divorce case. He also asks this Court to declare all orders issued in his divorce case void, to

order the case dismissed or transferred to Cuyahoga County, and to grant any other just relief.

{¶4} The Domestic Relations Court has moved to dismiss the petition for several

reasons, including that the Domestic Relations Court is not sui juris. We focus on that argument

because it is dispositive.

{¶5} The Ohio Supreme Court has held repeatedly that courts are not sui juris. See, e.g.,

State ex rel. Cleveland Mun. Court v. Cleveland City Council, 34 Ohio St.2d 120, 121 (1973);

Page v. Geauga Cnty. Prob. & Juvenile Court, 2023-Ohio-2491, ¶ 3. This Court has reached the

same conclusion in cases similar to this one. See, e.g., Pamboukis v. Summit Cnty. Domestic

Relations Court, 2023-Ohio-4507 (9th Dist.). Mr. Fritsche insists the sui juris issue is “a red

herring” because “[m]islabeling the entity does not change the substance” of his petition. He

further argues that his petition “is plainly directed at the judicial officers of the Domestic Relations

Division in their official capacities, as [his] own caption demonstrates.” Yet, Mr. Fritsche has not

named any judicial officer in his petition. Although the caption of his petition includes the word 3

“Judge”, neither the caption nor the body of his petition names any specific judge, magistrate, or

other court official. His petition only seeks relief against the Domestic Relations Court. Mr.

Fritsche specifically asks this Court to issue a writ of prohibition “restraining the Summit County

Domestic Relations Court from taking further action in [his divorce case] . . . .”

{¶6} As the Ohio Supreme Court and this Court have both held, a court cannot be sued

in its own right. Because Mr. Fritsche has only sought relief against the Summit County Domestic

Relations Court, and the Domestic Relations Court cannot be sued in its own right, this Court must

grant the motion to dismiss.

{¶7} The case is dismissed. All other outstanding motions are denied. Costs of this

action are taxed to Mr. Fritsche. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties

not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

SCOT A. STEVENSON FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

THOMAS J. FRITSCHE, Pro Se, Relator.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JENNIFER M. PIATT, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.