|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Error In Assigning Judge Is Ground for Objection, But Does Not Deprive Trial Court of Jurisdiction
2006-0064. In re J.J., 2006-Ohio-5484.
Cuyahoga App. No. 86276, 2005-Ohio-6096. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5484.pdf
(Nov. 8, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that when a trial court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over a case, a procedural error in transferring the case to a visiting judge is grounds for a timely objection and renders a judgment voidable, but does not void the trial court's judgment by negating its subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court held further that, when two different panels of the same court of appeals issue conflicting rulings on a legal issue, the conflict may not be certified for review by the Supreme Court but must rather be resolved through an en banc session in which all the judges of the court of appeals participate.
The case involved a complaint filed by the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (CCCFS) in juvenile court alleging that a minor child identified as J.J. was a neglected and dependent child. The magistrate who conducted an initial hearing in the case referred it to the docket of a visiting judge, contrary to a state superintendence rule requiring that judicial assignments must be made or approved by the administrative judge of a trial court. Without objection by the child's father or CCCFS, different visiting judges conducted further proceedings in the case and subsequently issued an order finding the child to be neglected and granting permanent custody to CCCFS.
J.J.'s father, Don Murphy, appealed. The 8th District Court of Appeals vacated the juvenile court's custody order and remanded the case to the juvenile court for new proceedings. The appellate panel held that, because the magistrate had no legal authority to assign the case to a visiting judge, that error deprived the juvenile court of subject matter jurisdiction, rendering all proceedings in the case after the invalid assignment void and unenforceable. CCCFS appealed the 8th District's ruling, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
In today's unanimous decision, authored by Justice Terrence O'Donnell, the Supreme Court reversed the 8th District, citing several of its own past decisions including Pratts v. Hurley (2004) and State v. Thomas (2002). Justice O'Donnell said these cases distinguished between a court's subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., its authority to hear specific types or classes of legal actions, and a court's jurisdiction over a particular case that falls within a class of cases for which it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
“ The General Assembly established the jurisdiction of juvenile courts and, in R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), granted them exclusive, original jurisdiction concerning matters involving a neglected or dependent child,” wrote Justice O'Donnell. “This action, therefore, involving the permanent custody of J.J. following a complaint alleging neglect, is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court. … Sup.R. 4(B) authorizes the administrative judge to ‘assign cases to individual judges of the court or division [and to] **** [r]equest, as necessary, the assignment of judges to the court or division.' Juv.R. 40 does not extend this power of assignment to magistrates, and even (CCCFS) concedes that the magistrate erred by signing the transfer order. This error, however, does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court over neglect and custody hearings.”
Noting that Murphy had the right to enter an objection to the improper judicial assignment during the juvenile court's subsequent proceedings, but failed to do so, Justice O'Donnell wrote: “(B)ecause Murphy failed to object at any time during any of the proceedings, he has not properly preserved the error and has waived it for purposes of appellate review.”
Justice O'Donnell also noted that, on the same day this case was decided by the court of appeals, a different panel of the 8th District issued a ruling in a virtually identical case, In re J. L., holding that an improper assignment of a case to a visiting judge did not void a juvenile court's judgment. “Further confusing the issue presented in this case is the fact that the Eighth District Court of Appeals issued two separate opinions in two different cases on this issue on the same day, with separate panels of the Eighth District Court of Appeals each reaching a different result,” he wrote. Justice O'Donnell pointed out that language in the Ohio Constitution dealing with certification of appellate court conflicts to the Supreme Court specifically limits such action to conflicts between districts, and wrote that conflicting rulings within the same appellate district “should be resolved through en banc proceedings. … The Eighth District's conflicting rulings on the same legal issue create confusion for lawyers and litigants and do not promote public confidence in the judiciary. Appellate courts are duty-bound to resolve conflicts within the district through en banc proceedings.”
Justice O'Donnell's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Maureen O'Connor. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only.
Contacts
Joseph C. Young, 216.391.6093, for
the Cuyahoga County Department of Child and Family Services.
John H. Lawson, 216.881.9675, for Don Murphy (father of J.J.).
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."