Appeal Availability Precludes Mandamus Relief: The Adequate Remedy Principle in State ex rel. Tentman v. Sundermann

Introduction

In State ex rel. Tentman v. Sundermann (2025-Ohio-1284), the Supreme Court of Ohio confronted the question of whether a writ of mandamus could lie when the relator had an adequate remedy by appeal. Solomon Tentman, dissatisfied with a Hamilton County court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over his divorce and child-custody case (in deference to a Tennessee court’s prior action), sought extraordinary relief against Judge Betsy Sundermann. He asked the appellate court to void the Tennessee judgments and compel the Ohio court to proceed. The First District dismissed his petition, holding that his unsuccessful appeal constituted an adequate legal remedy. On review, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, crystallizing the rule that where an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists—such as an appeal—a writ of mandamus is unavailable.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Ohio, in a per curiam opinion, unanimously affirmed the First District’s dismissal of Tentman’s mandamus petition. The Court ruled:

• Tentman had and used an adequate remedy at law by appealing the Hamilton County court’s decision declining jurisdiction.
• He failed to show that the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction such that mandamus would bypass the need for an appeal.
• The appeal process sufficed, notwithstanding Tentman’s unsuccessful result, to foreclose mandamus relief.
• The motions to expedite, supplement the record, and strike briefs were denied, and Tentman’s supplemental merit brief was struck as outside the record.

Consequently, the writ was denied and the appellate dismissal was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court relied on well-established mandamus jurisprudence and Ohio appellate practice:

• State ex rel. Hardesty v. Williamson, 9 Ohio St.3d 174 (1984): An unsuccessful appeal constitutes an adequate remedy at law, barring mandamus relief.
• State ex rel. Cleveland v. Calandra, 62 Ohio St.2d 121 (1980): Appeal is a “sufficiently plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
• State ex rel. O’Malley v. Collier-Williams, 152 Ohio St.3d 245 (2018): “Beneficial” remedy does not require success; mere availability suffices to render mandamus inappropriate.
• State ex rel. Thompson v. Gonzalez, 171 Ohio St.3d 17 (2024): Clarified that only a patently and unambiguously incorrect jurisdictional ruling can bypass the need to prove lack of an adequate remedy at law.
• Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), R.C. 3127.01 et seq.: Defined home-state jurisdiction and the bar on Ohio courts if another state acted in substantial conformity.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the three-prong test for mandamus:

1. Clear Legal Right: Tentman claimed a right to have Ohio courts override Tennessee judgments and assert jurisdiction.
2. Clear Legal Duty: He alleged Judge Sundermann had a duty to hear his case, but that duty arises only when no other remedy exists.
3. No Adequate Remedy in Law: The decisive issue: did Tentman have another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy? Yes—his initial appeal.

Because Tentman appealed the Hamilton County court’s decision on jurisdiction—and even sought review from this Court—he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Under Ohio law, the mere availability of an appeal, irrespective of outcome, precludes mandamus relief. The Court also noted that mandamus does not substitute for an appeal or retry established issues.

The opinion further addressed procedural motions: the request to expedite was denied because appeals in mandamus dismissals are not covered by the expedited appeal provisions of R.C. 3127.44; motions to supplement and strike were denied or the supplements struck for being outside the record; and Rule 12(B)(6) standards were reaffirmed in the context of de novo review of mandamus dismissals.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces the primacy of the appellate process and confines mandamus to cases where no other legal remedy exists. Practically:

• Litigants challenging jurisdictional determinations must exhaust appeals before seeking extraordinary writs.
• Court clerks and practitioners will apply this ruling to deny mandamus petitions where appeals were filed and concluded.
• The decision clarifies that “adequate remedy” does not require a favorable outcome, only the procedural availability of an appeal.
• It underscores judicial economy by discouraging parallel or piecemeal litigation via mandamus after an appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus: An extraordinary court order compelling a public official to perform a duty. It is remedial of last resort.
Adequate Remedy in the Ordinary Course of Law: A legal avenue (like an appeal) that is plain, speedy, and adequate to address the grievance. If available, it defeats mandamus.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The power of a court to hear a particular type of case (e.g., divorce/custody). If jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking, judgments are void.
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA): A statute governing which state has authority over child-custody disputes—usually the child’s “home state.”
Civ.R. 12(B)(6): A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Courts accept appellant’s factual allegations as true but dismiss when no legal relief is possible.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Tentman v. Sundermann cements the rule that an appeal, even if unsuccessful, is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, precluding mandamus relief. The Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed that writs of mandamus will not substitute for appellate review and will issue only when no other legal remedy suffices. This precedent will guide attorneys and courts in mandamus practice, ensuring that litigants pursue direct appeals before seeking extraordinary writs.