COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                                NO. 69288
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :
FRANK KOVACS                  :
                              :
        Relator               :     PETITION FOR WRIT OF 
                              :           MANDAMUS
     -vs-                     : 
                              :
ROBERT F. NICCUM, JUDGE       :
                              : 
        Respondent            :
                              :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT          :       APRIL 11, 1996
  OF DECISION                 :                        
JUDGMENT                      :    WRIT DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :                        
APPEARANCES:
For relator:                       For respondent:
FREDERICK D. KANTER, ESQ.          RICHARD A. WIEGAND, ESQ.
27600 Chagrin Blvd., #360          585 East 222nd Street
Cleveland, OH 44122                Euclid, OH 44123
ROBERT J. WILLIS, ESQ.             WILLIAM T. MONROE, ESQ.
5001 Mayfield Road, #208           1525 Leader Bldg.
Lyndhurst, OH 44124                Cleveland, OH 44114-1444
                               - 2 -
PATTON, J.
     Frank Kovacs, relator, instituted this action seeking writs of
mandamus and prohibition against respondent, Judge Robert F. Niccum
of  the  Euclid Municipal  Court.    For the  following  reasons we
dismiss this action as moot.
     In his  complaint, relator  requested writs  to issue  against
respondent,  who  was presiding  over  an eviction  action entitled
Kovacs v. Gains, Euclid  Mun. Ct. Case No. 95-CVG-906,  as follows:
(1) a writ of  mandamus requiring respondent  to hold a hearing  in
Kovacs v. Gains; (2) a writ  of prohibition barring respondent from
requiring relator  to provide  his residential  address; and  (3) a
writ of prohibition  barring respondent  from requiring relator  or
any other landlord to  be represented by counsel in  forcible entry
and detainer matters.   In  July, 1995, respondent  issued a  final
decision in the Kovacs eviction action.
     During the pendency of  the case sub judice, relator  sold his
properties  in Euclid,  Ohio,  and is  apparently  residing out  of
state.    Both relator  and  respondent admit  that  the underlying
municipal court eviction  action which prompted the filing  of this
original action has  been resolved.  Respondent  therefore contends
this  action  is moot  and  should  be dismissed.    Relator argues
against dismissal because he believes  the issues in the underlying
                               - 3 -
municipal  court  action  are capable  of  repetition,  yet evading
review.
     An action is moot "when resolution  of the issues presented is
purely academic  and will  have no  practical effect  on the  legal
relations  between the  parties."    Wagner  v. City  of  Cleveland
(1988), 62 Ohio App.3d 8, 574 N.E.2d 533.  In some  instances, how-
ever, as relator claims, a court  may decide an otherwise moot case
where  the issues raised in the case are apt to be repeated.  State
ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d
165, 527 N.E.2d  807, paragraph one of  the syllabus.  The  Supreme
Court of Ohio  explained that  "[a] case is  capable of  repetition
where 'there *** [is]  a reasonable expectation that the  same com-
plaining party *** [will] be subjected  to the same action again.'"
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Donaldson (1992), 63
Ohio St.3d 173, 175, 586 N.E.2d  101, quoting Weinstein v. Bradford
(1975),  423 U.S.  147, 149.   In this  case, relator has  sold his
properties in Euclid, Ohio and  is no longer a landlord  in respon-
dent's jurisdiction.  Moreover, relator  no longer resides in  Ohio
at all according to the papers filed, but is a resident of Florida.
Based on this information we do not believe there is any reasonable
expectation that  relator  will be  subjected  to the  same  action
again.   In  our opinion,  the  case is  not reasonably  capable of
                               - 4 -
repetition.    No   advisory  opinion  is  warranted   under  these
circumstances.
     Case dismissed.  Costs to relator.
DAVID T. MATIA, J.        
KARPINSKI, J.,     CONCUR.                                       
.