State ex rel. Hall v. Fink

2023 Ohio 4785

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 22, 2023
• Docket: 113349
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Hall v. Fink, 2023-Ohio-4785.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., SHERRY HALL, :

Relator, : No. 113349 v. :

EDWARD J. FINK, AS MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND PARMA MUNICIPAL COURT, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED DATED: December 22, 2023

Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition Order No. 570560

Appearances:

Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Joshua D. Rovenger, Melissa Salamon, Eric S. Zell, and Sam Sheffield, for relator.

Timothy G. Dobeck, Law Director, City of Parma, and Michael P. Maloney, Assistant Law Director, City of Parma, for respondent. EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

On November 6, 2023, the relator, Sherry Hall, commenced this

mandamus and prohibition case against Magistrate Edward Fink and Parma

Municipal Court to prohibit the court from proceeding to adjudicate the underlying

case, MAZCleveland L.L.C. v. Hall, Parma M.C. No. 23 CVG 03026, and to compel

the court to transfer the case to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Hall avers the following: When she was in danger of losing her home

because of back taxes, MAZCLeveland offered to buy her home. Hall maintains that

MAZCleveland represented that the purchase of the home would pay the taxes and

still leave her with $80,000. Thus, Hall sold her home to MAZCleveland in reliance

on the representation that she would net $80,000. However, after the sale, she

realized that the taxes were taken out of the $80,000 and she was left with far less

than anticipated. When she tried to rescind the deal, MAZCleveland commenced

the underlying case, a forcible entry and detainer action to evict her from her home.

Hall counterclaimed for fraud, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and

quiet title and sought damages in excess of $40,000 that exceeds the municipal

court’s monetary jurisdiction.

On November 28, 2023, this court issued an alternative writ to either

recommend certifying the entire case, including the forcible entry and detainer

claim, to the common pleas court or to show cause as to why the case should not be

certified. Pursuant to that order, on December 11, 2023, the respondents, Parma Municipal Court and Magistrate Edward Fink, filed their answer and response to the

alternative writ.1 The gravamen of the pleading is: “Respondents hereby notify this

Court that Respondents do not object to certification of Parma Municipal Court Case

No. 23 CVG 03026 to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.”

Accordingly, this court grants the writ of mandamus and orders the

respondents to certify the entire underlying case, MAZCleveland L.L.C. v. Hall,

Parma M.C. No. 23 CVG 03026, including the forcible entry and detainer claim and

any third-party claims to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court forthwith. The

claim for a writ of prohibition and the alternative writ are rendered moot. State ex

rel. Turk v. Comstock, 2018-Ohio-2125, 113 N.E.3d 1122 (8th Dist.). Respondents

to pay costs; costs waived. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties

notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R.

58(B).

Writ of mandamus granted.

_________________________ EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR

1 Because Parma Municipal Court was a party to the answer, this court pursuant to

Civ.R. 19 adds Parma Municipal Court as a respondent and eliminates any confusion arising from naming only the magistrate in the caption of the case. The court notes that the complaint seeks relief from the court and not just the magistrate.