On Thursday, October 17, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court denied a request for a writ of mandamus and a writ of supersedeas made by Michelle Hunter in her ongoing divorce case against Holden Troutman. The court’s decision comes after Hunter sought to stay the execution of a divorce judgment issued by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
The case concerns Hunter’s appeal of a divorce judgment delivered by Judge Francine Goldberg on December 27, 2023.
In the divorce decree, the court ordered Hunter to sell her residence and allocate the proceeds to Troutman. Additionally, Hunter was ordered to pay a significant sum of $192,960.22 for Troutman’s attorney fees. Following this judgment, Hunter filed an appeal with the Eighth District Court of Appeals the day after the divorce decree was issued.
On December 28, 2023, Hunter submitted a motion to the trial court requesting a stay of enforcement of the judgment while her appeal was pending, which was contingent on her posting a bond of $192,960.22. However, she did not submit the bond, and the trial court denied her request for a stay on January 2, 2024.
Subsequently, Hunter filed another motion in the Eighth District Court of Appeals on January 3, 2024, again seeking a stay of the judgment pending appeal and proposing the same bond amount. Troutman opposed this motion, suggesting that if the court were to grant Hunter a stay, a supersedeas bond of $1,500,000 would be more appropriate. The appellate court denied Hunter’s motion on January 29, 2024, stating simply that her request for a stay was denied.
On February 9, 2024, Hunter escalated the matter by filing a complaint for a writ of mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court. In her complaint, she requested that the court order either the trial court or the appellate court to grant a stay of execution and enforcement of the divorce judgment, contingent on her filing an adequate bond. Alternatively, Hunter sought a writ of supersedeas to stay the enforcement of the judgment.
The Supreme Court initially issued an alternative writ and required the submission of evidence and briefs. Hunter’s request for a temporary stay was also granted, which paused execution and enforcement of the trial court’s judgment while the Supreme Court considered her case.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized that to be granted a writ of mandamus, Hunter needed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief she sought, a legal duty on the part of the trial court or appellate court to provide that relief, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The court noted that while a writ of mandamus can sometimes be issued to correct abuse of discretion by lower courts, it cannot be used to control judicial discretion in cases where the courts have the authority to deny a stay.
The court concluded that although Hunter argued she was entitled to a stay under Civil Rule 62(B) and Appellate Rule 7(A) upon posting an adequate bond, she had not actually posted any bond for consideration. The court explained that a stay becomes effective only when a supersedeas bond is approved, which did not occur in this case.
Additionally, the court addressed Hunter’s request for a writ of supersedeas, stating that it has rarely exercised this authority. The court noted that Hunter’s arguments in favor of a writ of supersedeas were insufficiently developed, leading to the conclusion that she did not demonstrate entitlement to such a writ.
Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court denied both of Hunter’s requests, thereby allowing the enforcement of the divorce judgment to proceed. The court also lifted the temporary stay that had been in place since February 2024.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
