State ex rel. Boano v. Maloney
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Boano v. Maloney, 2005-Ohio-2385.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE EX REL. JACK D. BOANO, JR., RELATOR, VS. HONORABLE TIMOTHY P. MALONEY, MAHONING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, PROBATE DIVISION, RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 04-MA-287 OPINION and JOURNAL ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition for Writ of Prohibition JUDGMENT: Petition Granted. Writ Issued. APPEARANCES: For Relator: Attorney Robert N. Rusu, Jr. 55 N. Broad St. Canfield, Ohio 44406 For Respondent: Paul J. Gains Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney Linette M. Stratford Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor Youngstown, Ohio 44503 JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Dated: May 12, 2005 [Cite as State ex rel. Boano v. Maloney, 2005-Ohio-2385.] PER CURIAM. {¶1} Plaintiff-relator, Jack D. Boano, Jr., executor of the estate of Jack D. Boano, Sr., has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against defendant-respondent, Judge Timothy Maloney. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss. {¶2} Relator has filed his petition for writ of prohibition asking that we prevent respondent from appointing legal counsel on the estate s behalf, against his wishes, and from prosecuting an appeal from the decision announced in The Matter of the Estate of Jack Boano, 7th Dist. 03-MA-255, 2004-Ohio-6504. In that case, on December 1, 2004, this Court reversed respondent and ordered payment of $177.82 to Goldberg-Persky, litigation counsel on certain wrongful death claims. {¶3} Without consulting relator or his counsel, on December 3, 2004, respondent sua sponte appointed counsel for appellate purposes for a number of estates, including that of relator herein. This petition was then filed on December 30, 2004, followed by respondent s motion to dismiss. {¶4} This Court has decided the issue presented in this case by our decision th announced on April 14, 2005, in State ex rel. Marsteller v. Maloney, Judge, 7 Dist. 04-MA- 279, 2005-Ohio-1836. In Marsteller, we held that respondent patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to make the appointment of counsel. {¶5} In issuing the writ of prohibition this Court found that respondent s exercise of authority was clearly not authorized by law. {¶6} For the reasons expressed in Marsteller, supra, we overrule the respondent s motion to dismiss and order the writ of prohibition to issue. {¶7} Costs of this proceeding taxed against respondent. Final order. Clerk to serve notice as provided by the civil rules. Donofrio, P.J., concurs Vukovich, J., concurs Waite, J., concurs
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
