RONALD L. HORN v. HON. DIANA WHEELER, JUDGE, OLDHAM DISTRICT COURT AND NATIONAL CITY BANK OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 2, 2005; 2:00 P.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-000453-MR
RONALD L. HORN
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PAUL W. ROSENBLUM, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 04-CI-00752
HON. DIANA WHEELER, JUDGE,
OLDHAM DISTRICT COURT
APPELLEE
AND
NATIONAL CITY BANK
OF KENTUCKY
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; HENRY AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE:
This is an appeal from an order of the
Oldham Circuit Court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus
sought by the appellant, Ronald L. Horn, an inmate of the
Kentucky State Penitentiary in Eddyville.
The issue presented
is whether the circuit court erred in declining to require by
writ that the district court appoint counsel for Horn pursuant
to the provisions of Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR)
17.04(1).
We affirm.
On June 18, 2001, Horn was served with a summons and a
complaint naming him as the defendant in a district court action
to collect a debt.
After being served with the complaint, Horn,
acting pro se, filed a timely answer denying the amounts that
the plaintiff, National City Bank of Kentucky, claimed that he
owed.
He also asserted various other defenses.
On September 4, 2003, the bank filed a motion for
summary judgment.
Horn did not respond.
Twenty days later, the
district court granted the bank’s motion and entered judgment
against Horn in the amount of $2,026.30 -- plus interest, costs,
and attorney fees.
Approximately six months later, on March 22, 2004,
Horn filed a motion with the district court seeking to “arrest”
the judgment since a guardian ad litem had not been appointed on
his behalf pursuant to the provisions of CR 17.04. 1
The bank argued that Horn had “defended the action” by
filing a timely and responsive answer to the complaint and that
1
CR 17.04(1) provides as follows:
“Actions involving adult prisoners confined either within or without the
State may be brought or defended by the prisoner. If for any reason the
prisoner fails or is unable to defend an action, the court shall appoint a
practicing attorney as guardian ad litem, and no judgment shall be rendered
against the prisoner until the guardian ad litem shall have made defense or
filed a report stating that after careful examination of the case he or she
is unable to make defense.”
-2-
he was, therefore, not entitled to the appointment of counsel
pursuant to the rule.
Horn supplemented his motion for relief
with another motion filed with the district court in August
2004.
He again argued that the court had a duty to appoint a
guardian ad litem for him before rendering the judgment against
him.
It is unclear from the record how the court ruled on these
motions.
On November 1, 2004, Horn filed an original action in
the Oldham Circuit Court requesting that a writ of mandamus
issue and that the district court be required to appoint him a
guardian ad litem pursuant to the requirements of CR 17.04(1).
On December 13, 2004, the Oldham Circuit Court entered its order
denying the petition.
This appeal followed.
A writ of mandamus is an exceptional remedy that is
granted only under the most extraordinary circumstances.
v. Shadoan, Ky., 58 S.W.3d 884 (2001).
The decision as to
whether to issue a writ is always discretionary.
Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004).
upon a showing:
James
Hoskins v.
The petition may be granted
(1) that the lower court is proceeding or is
about to proceed outside its jurisdiction and that there is no
remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2)
that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously
(albeit within its jurisdiction), that there exists no adequate
remedy by appeal or otherwise, and that great injustice and
-3-
irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted.
See Hoskins, supra.
Horn conceded in his petition that the district court
had exercised proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action.
However, he asserted that the court had acted beyond
the legitimate scope of its jurisdiction by failing to take the
initiative sua sponte to appoint counsel for him pursuant to the
provisions of CR 17.04.
Horn’s appeal has several flaws.
Most notably, he
failed to file his petition for mandamus within a reasonable
time.
See 52 Am.Jur.2d Mandamus § 371 (2000).
A review of the
record indicates that Horn was quite adept in navigating his way
through the courts.
He has not shown that he was prevented from
filing his petition with the circuit court on a timely basis,
nor does he allege that he was otherwise unable to file his
petition.
He offers no excuse or justification for delaying
more than a year following the entry of judgment against him.
The circuit court was justified in refusing to entertain the
petition on this basis alone.
Additionally, Horn has failed to establish the
necessary prerequisites or conditions precedent to the issuance
of a writ.
The district court did not act outside its
jurisdiction by refusing his request to stay the judgment.
result, Horn was required to show that there was no adequate
-4-
As a
remedy by appeal or otherwise and that without the writ there
would be great injustice and irreparable injury.
See Grange
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004).
The judgment entered against Horn was subject to a
timely appeal on his assertions that the requirements of the
rules of civil procedure had not been properly followed and that
his federal and state due process rights had been violated as a
result.
Because the right of appeal provided him with an
adequate remedy for any alleged error, that avenue constituted
his sole remedy, thus rendering the writ unavailable to him.
Horn cannot show the existence of a “great injustice and
irreparable injury.”
No unique injustice or injury can be said
to result from the temporary loss of a judgment to which a
litigant believes he is entitled pending the outcome of an
appeal.
See The Independent Order of Foresters v. Chauvin, ____
S.W.3d ____ (Ky. 2005)(Rendered October 20, 2005).
Since Horn has failed to establish his entitlement to
a writ of mandamus, we need not reach the merits of his claim
that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the
petition.
Consequently, we affirm the order of the Oldham
Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
-5-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
Ronald L. Horn
Eddyville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE NATIONAL
CITY BANK, REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST:
Thomas R. Myers
Cincinnati, Ohio
-6-
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.