The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that state law permits the refiling of a dismissed lawsuit as long as it is refiled within the designated time limit. This decision rejects the notion of an unwritten “one-use” limit to the “savings statute,” which allows civil cases to be refiled after the statute of limitations has expired under certain conditions.
The ruling affirms a Second District Court of Appeals decision, allowing a Montgomery County lawsuit to proceed despite being filed and dismissed twice before the expiration of the statute of limitations, and then filed a third time after its expiration.
Justice R. Patrick DeWine, writing for the majority, stated that under the plain language of the savings statute, Ryan McCullough’s claim was properly filed. The law permits a party to refile a complaint dismissed without prejudice within one year of its dismissal. Justice DeWine noted that while there is no one-time refiling limit, Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure protect against abusive refiling aimed at indefinitely extending lawsuits.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Michael P. Donnelly, and Joseph T. Deters joined Justice DeWine’s opinion. Justice Melody Stewart concurred in judgment only.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner argued that the majority opinion mischaracterized the one-use rule as "judicially created" by a 1997 Supreme Court decision. She contended that Thomas v. Freeman merely explained how the law functioned at that time.
The case stems from an April 2017 auto accident involving McCullough and Joseph Bennett, where McCullough alleged Bennett ran a red light. After initial attempts to serve Bennett failed, resulting in dismissals without prejudice in January 2018 and November 2018 respectively, McCullough refiled his suit in September 2019 relying on the savings statute.
Bennett argued for dismissal on grounds that McCullough could not invoke the savings statute thrice since previous dismissals occurred before the statute's expiration period ended in April 2019. The trial court initially agreed with Bennett but was later overturned by the Second District Court of Appeals, leading to this Supreme Court review.
Justice DeWine explained that generally lawsuits cannot be filed post-statute of limitations unless exceptions like those provided by the savings statute apply: allowing plaintiffs to refile within one year if dismissed other than on merits or within original applicable limits—whichever is later.
Today’s ruling clarified that amendments made post-2004 allow multiple refilings under specific conditions absent previously implied single-use restrictions highlighted in Thomas v. Freeman. The decision concluded there was no attempt by McCullough to extend statutes indefinitely but rather timely compliance with statutory provisions for his third complaint filing in September 2019 following procedural rules safeguarding against abuse.
Justice Brunner emphasized in her concurrence that pre-2004 versions implied single use due necessity; thus previous court interpretations did not judicially create laws but elucidated existing statutes correctly characterized during their periods' context without misrepresentation.
2022-0879 McCullough v Bennett Slip Opinion No 2024-Ohio-2783