State Ex Rel. Boano v. Maloney, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2005)

2005 Ohio 2385
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 12, 2005
DocketNo. 04-MA-287.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2005 Ohio 2385 (State Ex Rel. Boano v. Maloney, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2005)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Boano v. Maloney, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2005), 2005 Ohio 2385 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

OPINION and JOURNAL ENTRY
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-relator, Jack D. Boano, Jr., executor of the estate of Jack D. Boano, Sr., has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against defendant-respondent, Judge Timothy Maloney. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss.

{¶ 2} Relator has filed his petition for writ of prohibition asking that we prevent respondent from appointing legal counsel on the estate's behalf, against his wishes, and from prosecuting an appeal from the decision announced in The Matter of the Estate of Jack Boano, 7th Dist. 03-MA-255, 2004-Ohio-6504. In that case, on December 1, 2004, this Court reversed respondent and ordered payment of $177.82 to Goldberg-Persky, litigation counsel on certain wrongful death claims.

{¶ 3} Without consulting relator or his counsel, on December 3, 2004, respondent sua sponte appointed counsel for appellate purposes for a number of estates, including that of relator herein. This petition was then filed on December 30, 2004, followed by respondent's motion to dismiss.

{¶ 4} This Court has decided the issue presented in this case by our decision announced on April 14, 2005, in State ex rel. Marsteller v.Maloney, Judge, 7th Dist. 04-MA-279, 2005-Ohio-1836. In Marsteller, we held that respondent patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to make the appointment of counsel.

{¶ 5} In issuing the writ of prohibition this Court found that respondent's exercise of authority was clearly not authorized by law.

{¶ 6} For the reasons expressed in Marsteller, supra, we overrule the respondent's motion to dismiss and order the writ of prohibition to issue.

{¶ 7} Costs of this proceeding taxed against respondent. Final order. Clerk to serve notice as provided by the civil rules.

Donofrio, P.J., concurs.

Vukovich, J., concurs.

Waite, J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Estate of Traylor, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2004)
2004 Ohio 6504 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 Ohio 2385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-boano-v-maloney-unpublished-decision-5-12-2005-ohioctapp-2005.