Opinion
No. 77-343
Decided December 14, 1977.
Municipal Court — Jurisdiction — Replevin actions — Prohibition — Does not lie, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
The appellant, Frank A. Flower, was divorced from Jean E. Flower, on August 29, 1975, in Maryland. The divorce decree incorporated a finding of ownership and right of possession to various items of personal property, part of which were specifically designated to be the sole property of Jean E. Flower. Thereafter, Frank Flower left Maryland and became a resident of Shaker Heights, Ohio. Jean Flower, his former wife, filed a motion to show cause in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Division of Domestic Relations, to enforce compliance with the Maryland divorce decree as to items of personal property granted her in that decree, which property she claimed was now within the court's jurisdiction. She asked that her former husband be adjudged in contempt for failing to comply with the Maryland decree. The Court of Common Pleas found that Frank Flower had substantially complied with the provisions of the property settlement and held that he should not be adjudged in contempt of court. That judgment was not appealed.
Thereafter, Jean Flower commenced an action in replevin in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court seeking to recover the same items of personal property. Frank Flower filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the Municipal Court action in replevin was barred as a result of the doctrine of res judicata, claiming that the same matter had been finally determined between the parties in Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court. That motion was overruled by the trial court, following which a complaint in prohibition was filed by Frank Flower in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, seeking to prohibit Judge Rocker and the Shaker Heights Municipal Court from hearing the replevin action. A motion by respondents to dismiss the complaint in prohibition was granted.
An appeal of right has been taken to this court.
Messrs. Van Aken, Bond, Withers Asman, Mr. William R. Van Aken and Mr. Robert J. Asman, for appellant.
Mr. Paul R. Donaldson, director of law, and Ms. Chrystine I. Romaniw, for appellees.
The issue is whether appellant has stated a claim upon which a writ of prohibition could possibly issue.
The conditions prerequisite to issuance of a writ of prohibition include: "`* * * (1) The court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy; (3) the exercise of such power must amount to an unauthorized usurpation of judicial power.'" State, ex rel. Rouault, v. Common Pleas Court (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 65, at page 66.
The Shaker Heights Municipal Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over replevin actions. That jurisdiction includes the power to make rulings concerning possible defenses in relation to replevin actions, including the affirmative defense of res judicata. Hence, the trial court did not usurp its judicial power.
Appellant asserts further that the Shaker Heights Municipal Court has no power to decide the replevin action as, between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the one whose power is first invoked acquires the right to adjudicate the entire issue to the exclusion of other tribunals. See State, ex rel. Phillips, v. Polcar (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 279. That principle, however, has no application to the instant cause as the first action had been terminated before the second action was commenced.
Prohibition is not available as a substitute for appeal which provides an adequate remedy at law for appellant in this cause.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, MCCORMAC, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.
MCCORMAC, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for W. BROWN, J.