[Cite as Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-2218.] 

CITY OF ZANESVILLE, APPELLANT, v. ROUSE, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1, 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.

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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

{¶ 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, 547 N.E.2d 399, 

citing State v. Brown (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 400, 2 OBR 475, 442 N.E.2d 475. It 

follows that if a 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 
January Term, 2010 

3 

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 

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. 

 

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 

{¶ 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, 43 Ohio St. at 61, 

1 N.E. 84. 

{¶ 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 

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 
January Term, 2010 

5 

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 were 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 

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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

Elizabeth N. Gaba and David T. Spencer, for appellee. 

______________________