State ex rel. Robinson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

1996 Ohio 212, 75 Ohio St. 3d 431

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 75 Ohio St.3d 431.]

THE STATE EX REL. ROBINSON, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Robinson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 1996-Ohio-212.] Mandamus to compel common pleas court to vacate its order appointing a guardian ad litem for relator—Writ denied where adequate remedy at law exists. (No. 95-2110—Submitted February 20, 1996—Decided April 17, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 69476. __________________ {¶ 1} Lewis G. Robinson appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County dismissing his August 25, 1995 complaint for a writ of mandamus. The complaint sought to require the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to vacate its order of January 26, 1990 in which it appointed a guardian ad litem for Robinson. {¶ 2} In dismissing Robinson’s complaint, the court of appeals found that since a court of common pleas has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem, a writ of mandamus will not lie to compel vacation of the appointment order and the appropriate remedy for Robinson was by an appeal. {¶ 3} The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Lewis G. Robinson, pro se. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gregory B. Rowinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We agree with the court of appeals. Since Sturges v. Longworth (1853), 1 Ohio St. 544, we have approved of a court of common pleas’ appointing a guardian ad litem, literally a guardian for the case, who has no duties prior to the institution of a suit or after its termination but whose sole duty is to defend in a particular cause. Civ.R. 17(B) authorizes a court, as incident to its power to try a case, to order the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Robinson’s remedy was appeal from that order. Mandamus will not issue where, as here, there was an adequate remedy at law. {¶ 5} The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. WRIGHT, J., not participating. __________________