Opinion
No. 76-1064
Decided May 4, 1977.
Prohibition — Writ denied, when — Adequate remedy at law available.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
In January 1973, appellant, Levonia Jane White Rouault, represented by attorney William J. Kraus, filed a complaint for a divorce in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County. Appellant discharged Kraus and hired another attorney in April of 1974. In January of 1975, after the Court of Appeals had reversed an earlier award of attorney's fees to Kraus, the Court of Common Pleas granted appellant a divorce, including in the divorce decree an order for payment of $11,265.75 in attorney's fees to Kraus. Kraus then filed a Motion for Intervention and a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Common Pleas Court. Appellant, in turn, brought an action in prohibition against the Common Pleas Court and Judge John L. Maxwell in the Court of Appeals. That court denied the writ on the grounds that she had an "adequate remedy at law." Appellant has appealed that decision to this court as a matter of right.
Stewart DeChant Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Lawrence E. Stewart, for appellant.
The issue raised in this cause is whether a writ of prohibition should 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. Northern Ohio Telephone Co., v. Winter (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 6, 8.
Since prohibition will not lie unless all three prerequisites are met, and since appellant has a "plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law," the writ must be denied. State, ex rel. Stefanick, v. Municipal Court (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 102, 104. In the instant cause, appellant has a right of appeal from a Common Pleas Court decision on Kraus' motions for intervention and for summary judgment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, denying the writ, is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J. HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.