Zanesville v. Rouse, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2218.
Muskingum App. No. CT08-0035, 2009-Ohio-2689. Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and judgment of the trial court reinstated.
Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
O'Donnell, J., concurs separately.
Brown, C.J., not participating.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2218.pdf
(May 26, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled that a document is “filed” when it is deposited properly for filing with the clerk of courts. The Supreme Court also ruled that even when a document lacks a clerk’s endorsement indicating it has been filed, filing may be proved by other means.
The case centers on whether a domestic violence case was validly filed with the clerk of the Zanesville Municipal Court. The clerk accepted the document and placed the document in a case file, but did not physically place a date stamp on the complaint document.
In the Court’s 6-0 decision, authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, she wrote: “We observe, however, that the filing of a document does not depend on the performance of a clerk’s duties. … The clerk’s duty to certify the act of filing arises only after a document has been filed.”
Justice Lanzinger pointed to several Supreme Court cases and the Rules of Superintendence that differentiate filing and certification of filing by the clerk. “In short, the time or date stamp does not cause the filing, the filing causes the certification,” she summarized.
As to situations when a document lacks an endorsement from a clerk, Justice Lanzinger wrote of other means available to prove a filing in this case.
“When the named defendant filed his motion to dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction, Zanesville responded with a brief and exhibits including a printout of the electronic docket sheet and an affidavit from the clerk of courts as proof that the case had been filed. The clerk’s affidavit explains that it is clear from her records that the complaint was filed on February 28, 2006, because the electronic docket for this case indicates a ‘filing date’ of February 28, 2006. Furthermore, it was the clerk’s practice to create a new case file and corresponding electronic docket upon receipt of a complaint, and such a file and docket was created.”
The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
Justice Lanzinger’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Terrence O’Donnell concurred separately, writing he would reverse the appeals court’s judgment based on the holding in King v. Penn, “which stands for the proposition that ‘[w]hen a paper is in good faith delivered to the proper officer to be filed, and by him received to be kept in its proper place in his office, it is ‘filed.’ The indorsement upon it by such officer of the fact and date of filing is but evidence of such filing.’”
Chief Justice Eric Brown did not participate in the Court’s deliberations or decision in the case.
Contacts
Scott T. Hillis, 740.455.3350, for the City of Zanesville.
Elizabeth N. Gaba, 614.586.1586, for Ronald Rouse Jr.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment