[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 43055Licking 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 c omplaint without prejudice. Defendant-Appellee is Cassandra Millett Gurtler. Gur tler 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 p lus 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 fr om 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 Bridgecres t to Gurtler indicating the vehicle was sold at auction for less than Gurtler owed and advi sing her of the balance due and; 4) a "Bill of Sale and Assignment of Accounts" conveyi ng Gurtler's account to Appellant Persolve Recoveries, LLC. {¶ 3} On September 9, 2020, after Gurtler failed to file any re sponsive pleading, Appellant moved for summary judgment. On September 11, 2020, th e 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 bal ance, 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 sa id to be due. In theLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00069 3

alternative, Appellant was ordered to state a reason for the om ission 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 sh owing a list of payments and credits. This document includes an account number, but no i ndication 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 ent ry indicating Appellant had failed to provide a more definite statement of th e 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 O hio 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 requir ements 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, m odified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one of the fol lowing: (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 t he provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in fav or 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 al l proceedings, issues, claims, and parties in the action.

{¶ 10} Appellant argues this court should consider its assignme nt 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 st atement. According to Appellant, because the trial court is not a "party" it may not properly require Appellant toLicking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00069 5

provide a more definite statement on its own motion. Additional ly, Appellant argues because two like cases filed by Appellant against different def endants were dismissed for the same reason, the issue is capable of repetition and therefo re 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 Appel lant'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 bro ught 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 fina l determination of the rights of the parties and does not constitute a final order pur suant 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