[Cite as Persolve Recoveries, L.L.C. v. Gurtler, 2021-Ohio-1759.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PERSOLVE RECOVERIES, LLC : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

CASSANDRA MILLET GURTLER : Case No. 2020 CA 00069 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court, 

Case No. 20 CVF 560 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 21, 2021 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

SEAN M. WINTERS CASSANDRA MILLET GURTLER 

4645 Executive Drive 16 1⁄2 Dewey Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43220 Newark, OH 43055 

 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00069 2 

Wise, Earle, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant Persolve Recoveries, LLC appeals the October 6, 2020 

judgment of the Licking County Municipal Court dismissing its complaint without 

prejudice. Defendant-Appellee is Cassandra Millett Gurtler. Gurtler has not filed a brief in 

this matter. 

FACTS AND PROCEURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On March 5, 2020, as a result of Gurtler's default on an auto loan, Appellant 

filed a complaint against Gurtler seeking to recover $4973.33 plus interest. Appellant 

attached to its complaint: 1) the contract Gurtler signed with Drivetime Carsales 

Company, LLC to purchase the vehicle; 2) a notice to Gurtler from Bridgecrest (to whom 

Gurtler's contract was assigned) following repossession of the vehicle and stating its 

intent to sell the same at auction; 3) a notice from Bridgecrest to Gurtler indicating the 

vehicle was sold at auction for less than Gurtler owed and advising her of the balance 

due and; 4) a "Bill of Sale and Assignment of Accounts" conveying Gurtler's account to 

Appellant Persolve Recoveries, LLC. 

{¶ 3} On September 9, 2020, after Gurtler failed to file any responsive pleading, 

Appellant moved for summary judgment. On September 11, 2020, the trial court ordered 

appellant to provide a more definite statement within 30 days. Specifically, the court 

ordered Appellant to provide the debtor's name, a beginning balance, a list of dated items 

representing charges, debits, and credits, and a summarization showing a running or 

developing balance or which allows calculation of the amount said to be due. In the 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00069 3 

alternative, Appellant was ordered to state a reason for the omission of the same in its 

pleadings. 

{¶ 4} On October 5, 2020, Appellant filed the same documents it had filed with its 

complaint, with the addition of a two-page untitled document showing a list of payments 

and credits. This document includes an account number, but no indication as to who the 

account belongs to. Account numbers are redacted from all other documents filed with 

the trial court. 

{¶ 5} On October 6, 2020, the trial court issued a judgment entry indicating 

Appellant had failed to provide a more definite statement of the account as ordered and 

therefore dismissed the matter without prejudice. 

{¶ 6} Appellant filed an appeal raising one assignment of error for our 

consideration: 

I 

{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED 

PERSOLVE'S COMPLAINT FOR ITS ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT." 

{¶ 8} Before we may address Appellant's assignment of error, we must address 

our jurisdiction to do so. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution limits this 

court's appellate jurisdiction to the review of final judgments of lower courts. For a 

judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and, 

if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 88, 

541 N.E.2d 64 (1989). 

{¶ 9} R.C. 2505.02 defines final orders as follows: 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00069 4 

(B) An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, 

or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one of the following: 

(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect 

determines the action and prevents a judgment; 

(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special

proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after 

judgment; 

(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new 

trial; 

(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which 

both of the following apply: 

(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the 

provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of 

the appealing party with respect to the provisional remedy. 

(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or 

effective remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all 

proceedings, issues, claims, and parties in the action. 

{¶ 10} Appellant argues this court should consider its assignment of error because 

the issue involved is capable of repetition yet evading review. The issue Appellant refers 

to is the trial court's sua sponte order for a more definite statement. According to 

Appellant, because the trial court is not a "party" it may not properly require Appellant to 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00069 5 

provide a more definite statement on its own motion. Additionally, Appellant argues 

because two like cases filed by Appellant against different defendants were dismissed for 

the same reason, the issue is capable of repetition and therefore an exception to the 

above rules requiring a final appealable order. We disagree. 

{¶ 11} Civ.R. 41(B)(1) provides "[w]here the plaintiff fails to prosecute, or comply 

with these rules or any court order, the court upon motion of a defendant or on its own 

motion may, after notice to the plaintiff's counsel, dismiss an action or claim." The trial 

court dismissed Appellant's case without prejudice for failing to comply with an order of 

the court and Appellant does not dispute this fact. Generally, where a cause is dismissed 

without prejudice and otherwise than on the merits pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1), the parties 

are left in the same position as if the plaintiff had never brought the action. Central Mut. 

Ins. Co., v. Bradford-White, 35 Ohio App.3d 26, 519 N.E.2d 422 (1987). 

{¶ 12} A dismissal without prejudice, therefore, is not a final determination of the 

rights of the parties and does not constitute a final order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02. Id. 

See also, McIntosh v. Slick, 5th Dist. Stark App. Nos.2001 CA00268 and 2001 CA00273, 

2002-Ohio-3599. 

{¶ 13} Because Appellant has the ability to properly refile its claims, the trial court's 

dismissal without prejudice is not a final appealable order. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00069 6 

{¶ 14} Based on the foregoing, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Appellant's 

appeal. 

{¶ 15} The appeal in this matter is hereby dismissed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Wise, John, J. concur. 

EEW/rw