On Thursday, October 10, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a prohibition complaint filed by Mark R. Gideon against Judge Jaiza N. Page and the City of Worthington. The case arose from an eminent domain appropriation action in which the City of Worthington sought to obtain an easement on Gideon’s property to install a new sewer line.
The underlying dispute began in September 2021 when the City of Worthington initiated the appropriation case against Gideon in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Judge Page presided over the proceedings. In October 2022, following a settlement conference with a magistrate, both parties reached an agreement. However, the parties failed to submit a signed settlement agreement to the court by the deadline set by Judge Page, who ordered that an entry reflecting the settlement be submitted within 60 days or face dismissal.
On January 10, 2023, Judge Page dismissed the case without prejudice, citing the lack of a submitted entry and no written notification regarding the delay. In her judgment entry, Judge Page emphasized that the case would be dismissed if the appropriate entry was not provided. The order stated that the parties could later submit an amended entry to reflect the terms of the settlement.
On February 8, 2023, the City of Worthington filed a motion to vacate the dismissal and enforce the settlement agreement. Gideon opposed the motion, arguing that Judge Page no longer had jurisdiction after the dismissal. During a hearing on the motion, Worthington contended that Judge Page could vacate the dismissal based on her inherent authority and under Civil Rule 60(B).
On July 6, 2023, Judge Page granted Worthington’s motion in part, vacating the dismissal and scheduling a hearing to determine whether to enforce the settlement agreement. Gideon subsequently appealed the order to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.
In response to Judge Page’s actions, Gideon filed a prohibition action on August 15, 2023, seeking a writ to prevent further proceedings in the appropriation case. He claimed that Judge Page had exceeded her jurisdiction by vacating the dismissal and attempting to enforce the settlement agreement. Both Judge Page and Worthington filed motions to dismiss Gideon’s complaint, which the Tenth District granted on March 29, 2024.
Gideon then appealed the dismissal to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that once the case was dismissed, Judge Page patently and unambiguously lacked the authority to vacate her own order or to enforce any settlement. He primarily relied on the precedent set in Infinite Security Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Properties II, Ltd., asserting that a trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement only if the dismissal entry incorporates the terms of the agreement or explicitly states that the court retains jurisdiction.
However, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the situation in the Karam case was not applicable here, as Judge Page had vacated her dismissal entry before attempting to enforce the settlement. The Court noted that the trial court had retained subject-matter jurisdiction over the appropriation case and highlighted that there was no statute removing that jurisdiction.
The Court further stated that under Civil Rule 60(B), a trial court has the power to vacate a final judgment for various reasons, including mistake or any other justifiable reason. Therefore, Judge Page had the authority to consider the motion to vacate the dismissal and did not lack jurisdiction in doing so.
In conclusion, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss Gideon’s prohibition complaint, affirming that Judge Page did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction in the matter. The ruling effectively allows the eminent-domain proceedings to continue, maintaining the judge’s authority to manage the case following the vacated dismissal.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
