Title: Zanesville v. Rouse

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Zanesville v. Rouse, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2218.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-2218 
THE CITY OF ZANESVILLE, APPELLANT, v. ROUSE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Zanesville v. Rouse, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2218.] 
A document is “filed” when it is deposited properly for filing with the clerk of 
courts.  The clerk’s duty to certify the act of filing arises only after a 
document has been filed — When a document lacks an endorsement from 
the clerk of courts indicating that it has been filed, filing may be proved by 
other means. 
(No. 2009-1282 — Submitted March 9, 2010 — Decided May 26, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County, 
No. CT08-0035, 2009-Ohio-2689. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
1. A document is “filed” when it is deposited properly for filing with the clerk of 
courts.  The clerk’s duty to certify the act of filing arises only after a 
document has been filed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2. When a document lacks an endorsement from the clerk of courts indicating that 
it has been filed, filing may be proved by other means. 
__________________ 
 
LANZINGER, J. 
Case Background 
{¶ 1} The appellee, Ronald T. Rouse Jr., was charged with a 
misdemeanor offense of domestic violence as a violation of a Zanesville 
ordinance.  The clerk of the Zanesville Municipal Court received the complaint 
against Rouse, but failed to date stamp or time stamp the complaint.  The 
complaint is physically located in the record, but bears no mark from the clerk’s 
office indicating when it was filed. 
{¶ 2} Rouse entered a plea of not guilty.  Before his sentencing, he filed 
a motion to dismiss the charges against him on grounds that the charging 
complaint had not been properly filed.  The city of Zanesville filed a response and 
attached an affidavit of the clerk and a printout of the case docket as proof that the 
complaint had been filed. 
{¶ 3} The trial court overruled the motion, found Rouse guilty, sentenced 
him to a jail term, and imposed a fine. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, 
reasoning that the complaint had not been filed and thus the jurisdiction of the 
trial court had never been invoked.  The court of appeals held the judgment 
against Rouse to be void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on State v. 
Sharp, Knox App. Nos. 08 CA 000002, 08 CA 000003, and 08 CA 000004, 2009-
Ohio-1854.  We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} The filing of a complaint invokes the jurisdiction of the municipal 
court.  See  State v. Miller (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 113, 114, citing State v. Brown 
(1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 400, 2 OBR 475, 442 N.E.2d 475.  It follows that if a 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
complaint is not filed in a case, the trial court has not obtained jurisdiction over it.  
Thus, the question before us is whether a complaint against Rouse actually was 
filed.  Rouse urges us to declare that because the complaint does not bear the 
appropriate file stamp, the complaint was not filed and concomitantly the 
judgment against him is void. 
{¶ 6} Under several Ohio statutes, the clerk of a municipal court is 
required to maintain a docket for each case, enter when each document is filed, 
the date of filing for each document on that docket, and endorse (statutes use the 
word “indorse”) the time or date of filing on each document.  See R.C. 1901.31,1 
2303.08,2 and 2303.10.3  Similarly, Sup.R. 26.05(B)(2) requires that “[u]pon the 
filing of any paper or electronic entry permitted by the municipal or county court, 
a stamp or entry shall be placed on the paper or electronic entry to indicate the 
day, month, and year of filing.”  The Zanesville Municipal Clerk failed in this 
case to properly endorse the complaint with the time or date of filing. 
{¶ 7} We observe, however, that the filing of a document does not 
depend on the performance of a clerk’s duties. A document is “filed” when it is 
deposited properly for filing with the clerk of courts.  The clerk’s duty to certify 
the act of filing arises only after a document has been filed.  This is implicit in the 
                                                 
1.  {¶ a} R.C. 1901.31(E) provides: “The [municipal court] clerk shall do all of the following: file 
and safely keep all journals, records, books, and papers belonging or appertaining to the court * * 
*. 
     {¶ b} “The clerk shall prepare and maintain a general index, a docket, and other records that 
the court, by rule, requires, all of which shall be the public records of the court. In the docket, the 
clerk shall enter, at the time of the commencement of an action, the names of the parties in full, the 
names of the counsel, and the nature of the proceedings. Under proper dates, the clerk shall note 
the filing of the complaint, issuing of summons or other process, returns, and any subsequent 
pleadings.” 
 
2.  R.C. 2303.08 provides: “The clerk of the court of common pleas [and every other clerk of a 
court of record, see R.C. 2303.31] shall indorse on each pleading or paper in a cause filed in the 
clerk's office the time of filing * * *.” 
 
3.  R.C. 2303.10 provides: “The clerk of the court of common pleas [and every other clerk of a 
court of record, see R.C. 2303.31] shall indorse upon every paper filed with him the date of the 
filing thereof * * *.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
statutes and rules regarding filing.  See R.C. 1901.31, 2303.08, 2303.10, and 
2303.31, and Sup.R. 26.05 and 44.  For instance, Sup.R. 44(E) provides that “ 
‘[f]ile’ means to deposit a document with a clerk of court, upon the occurrence of 
which the clerk time or date stamps and dockets the document.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  Thus, a party “files” by depositing a document with the clerk of court, 
and then the clerk’s duty is to certify the act of filing.  In short, the time or date 
stamp does not cause the filing, the filing causes the certification. 
{¶ 8} This court has long recognized the difference between filing and 
certification of filing by the clerk.  In King v. Penn (1885), 43 Ohio St. 57, 1 N.E. 
84, we held 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.” Id. at 61.  Furthermore, when a document is filed, the 
clerk’s failure to file-stamp it does not create a jurisdictional defect.  State v. Otte 
(2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 167, 169, 761 N.E.2d 34, citing State ex rel. Larkins v. 
Baker (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 658, 653 N.E.2d 701.  That the clerk’s duties were 
not carried out properly in this case does not mean that the complaint was not, in 
fact, filed. 
{¶ 9} Nevertheless, certification by a clerk on a document attests that it 
was indeed filed.  Had the complaint been endorsed with “the fact and date of 
filing” by the clerk, this would be evidence of the filing.  King v. Penn at 61. 
{¶ 10} But in the absence of a time or date stamp from the clerk, the 
question is whether there is sufficient evidence from which a court may determine 
that the document actually was filed.  In Ferrebee v. Boggs (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 
87, 88, 47 O.O.2d 237, 247 N.E.2d 753, the appellant had filed her bill of 
exceptions (containing the evidence submitted to the trial court), but the clerk had 
failed to “officially stamp” it.  We held that the lack of the clerk’s stamp did not 
prevent the court of appeals from considering the contents of the bill, because it 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
was “clear from the record, the briefs and oral argument” that the bill had been 
filed.  Id.  When a document lacks an endorsement from the clerk of courts 
indicating that it has been filed, filing may be proved by other means.  Here, there 
is sufficient evidence that the complaint was deposited with the clerk of courts. 
{¶ 11} 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 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.  In short, the docketing of the case shows that the clerk 
actually received the complaint.  Based on these facts, the trial court correctly 
determined that the complaint had been filed and correctly overruled Rouse’s 
motion to dismiss. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs separately. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring. 
{¶ 13} I concur and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals 
based on the holding in King v. Penn (1885), 43 Ohio St. 57, 61, 1 N.E. 84, which 
stands for the proposition that “[w]hen a paper is in good faith delivered to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
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.” 
__________________ 
Scott T. Hillis, Zanesville Law Director, and Susan E. Small, Assistant 
Law Director, for appellant. 
Elizabeth N. Gaba and David T. Spencer, for appellee. 
______________________