[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cox 

v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5505.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-5505

COX, APPELLEE, v. DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION,

APPELLANT. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Cox v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-5505.] 

Requirements for invoking the jurisdiction of a court of common pleas to vacate, 

modify, or correct an arbitration award under R.C. 2711.13—R.C. 2711.13 

requires service as provided in Civ.R. 5(B)—R.C. 1.14, Civ.R. 6(A), and 

R.C. 1.45 are applied in determining whether motion to vacate, modify, or 

correct arbitration award was timely served. 

(No. 2015-0494—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided August 25, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 26382, 

2015-Ohio-620. 

_________________ 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

O’NEILL, J. 

{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal, we consider the requirements for 

invoking the jurisdiction of a court of common pleas to vacate, modify, or correct 

an arbitration award under R.C. 2711.13. On March 10, 2014, appellee, Georgia 

B. Cox, filed a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award finding 

that there was just cause for her termination. The arbitration award was handed 

down on December 10, 2013. At the heart of this case is the question whether Cox 

timely served notice of her motion on the opposing party, her former employer, 

appellant, Dayton Public Schools Board of Education (“the BOE”). The BOE asks 

us to adopt the following proposition of law: “Notice of a petition seeking the 

vacation or modification of an arbitration award pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2711 

must be received by the adverse party or its attorney within the statutory three 

month period contained in R.C. 2711.13.” For the following reasons, we reject this 

proposition of law and affirm the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals. 

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 2} Cox was an intervention specialist assigned to teach students in the 

special-education unit at Meadowdale High School, a facility in the Dayton publicschool system. She was dismissed from the school campus and placed on 

administrative leave after allegedly hitting a student who had multiple physical and 

mental disabilities.1 After a hearing on the incident, the BOE served Cox with a 

notice of intent to terminate her contract. The matter was submitted to arbitration 

in accordance with the labor agreement between the BOE and the Dayton Education 

Association (“the DEA”), the union representing Cox. 

{¶ 3} The arbitrator conducted a hearing with Cox, the attorney for the 

DEA, and the attorney for the BOE present. On December 10, 2013, the arbitrator 

issued a decision finding just cause for terminating Cox. The arbitrator e-mailed a 

 

1

 Cox was criminally prosecuted for the incident, and she was convicted of assault, a fourth-degree 

felony. State v. Cox, 2014-Ohio-2201, 12 N.E.3d 466 (2d Dist.). 
January Term, 2016 

3

copy of the decision to the attorneys for the BOE and DEA on December 10, 2013, 

but Cox was not included as a recipient of the e-mail. On December 18, 2013, the 

BOE passed a formal resolution adopting the arbitrator’s decision and directing 

Cox to be served with a copy of the order by certified mail. There is no evidence 

in the record establishing when Cox actually received a copy of the arbitrator’s 

decision or who sent it. Cox explained at oral argument that she received a copy 

by e-mail from some person other than the arbitrator, the BOE, or the DEA. 

{¶ 4} Cox filed a motion in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court 

to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration decision on March 10, 2014. At that 

time, she requested that the clerk of courts serve the BOE, and the court’s docket 

indicates that a copy of the motion was sent to the BOE by certified mail that day. 

The BOE received that copy of the motion on March 12, 2014. The BOE submitted 

a date-stamped envelope showing that Cox sent a second copy of the motion to the 

attorney for the BOE by certified mail on March 11, 2014. The second copy was 

received on March 13, 2013. 

{¶ 5} The BOE responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that Cox did 

not have standing to challenge the arbitrator’s decision and that her motion was not 

filed within the three-month period required by R.C. 2711.13. The trial court 

granted the motion to dismiss, agreeing with the BOE that Cox lacked standing. 

The trial court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because 

the BOE had not actually received a copy of the motion before expiration of the 

three-month time for serving notice and therefore Cox had not complied with the 

service requirements in R.C. 2711.13. Cox appealed from the dismissal order, and 

the Second District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the issues of both 

standing and jurisdiction. The BOE appealed, and we now address the BOE’s 

proposition of law regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court.2

 

2

 We did not accept jurisdiction over the BOE’s propositions of law that challenge the judgment of 

the court of appeals on the issue of standing. We therefore limit our review to the proposition of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Analysis

{¶ 6} Cox is representing herself in this matter. We have consistently held 

that pro se litigants must be treated the same as litigants who are represented by 

counsel. In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43, 

2013-Ohio-5478, 3 N.E.3d 173, ¶ 22. The dissenting opinion suggests that the 

majority interprets the law in Cox’s favor because she is representing herself. 

However, this opinion is based solely on the application of the law to the facts, and 

the holding applies equally to all litigants, whether they represent themselves or are 

represented by counsel. 

{¶ 7} The BOE asks us to hold that R.C. 2711.13 requires that the notice of 

a motion challenging an arbitration award in a court of common pleas must be 

received by the adverse party or its attorney within the three-month period 

prescribed by the statute. Cox urges the court not to require actual receipt within 

that period under R.C. 2711.13. We note that the BOE demands timely actual 

receipt of Cox’s motion challenging the arbitrator’s decision and also asserts that 

the time to file and serve the motion began to run on the day the decision was emailed by the arbitrator to all interested parties except Cox, the aggrieved 

employee. 

{¶ 8} But to this day, the BOE has not shown which day Cox was served a 

copy of the decision from which she seeks relief. It is truly unfair to demand that 

a litigant comply with a statute’s service requirements while ignoring the fact that 

the opposing party has not proved when the litigant was served a copy of the 

document that triggered the start of the clock on the service requirement. 

Nevertheless, as explained below, even accepting as true the BOE’s assertion that 

the award was delivered on December 10, 2013, Cox’s notice was timely filed and 

served. 

 

law regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court, and the decision of the Second District Court of 

Appeals regarding standing persists as the law of the case. 
January Term, 2016 

5

{¶ 9} We apply a statute “as written” if the “meaning is clear and 

unambiguous.” Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell, 144 Ohio St.3d 490, 

2015-Ohio-4551, 45 N.E.3d 185, ¶ 40. R.C. 2711.13 states: 

Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award 

must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three 

months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest, as 

prescribed by law for service of notice of a motion in an action. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 10} There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about this provision. To 

apply this statute, a court must first answer two questions: (1) on what day was the 

arbitrator’s decision “delivered to the parties in interest” and (2) on what day was 

the motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitrator’s decision “served upon the 

adverse party or his attorney * * * as prescribed by law for service of notice of a 

motion in an action”? R.C. 2711.13. Having determined these dates, a court must 

then determine whether the service date occurred “within three months after” the 

delivery date. If not, then the notice was not timely served. We now apply R.C. 

2711.13 to the case before us. 

Delivery 

{¶ 11} The three-month period under R.C. 2711.13 starts when the 

arbitration award is “delivered to the parties in interest.” The BOE and Cox 

disagree about when the arbitration award was delivered in this case. The BOE 

argues that the date Cox received the award is immaterial and that the delivery day 

is the day the arbitrator transmitted the award, December 10, 2013. Cox argues, on 

the other hand, that December 10, 2013, cannot be the day upon which the 

arbitrator’s award was “delivered,” because neither the arbitrator, nor the DEA, nor 

the BOE sent her the award that day. Cox admitted at argument that some unnamed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

third party relayed the award to Cox via e-mail on December 10, 2013, and her brief 

suggests that she received the award in the mail sometime thereafter. 

{¶ 12} We believe that any statement that the award was delivered on a 

specific date would be to resolve an open question of fact. Indeed, the trial court 

failed to resolve the factual question, and instead made its decision by “assuming 

that the arbitrator effectively delivered his decision on December 10, 2013.” We 

need not determine whether the arbitrator’s December 10, 2013 e-mail delivered 

the arbitrator’s award to “the parties in interest” within the meaning of R.C. 

2711.13. As explained in the remainder of this opinion, Cox’s notice to the BOE 

was timely served based upon the BOE’s view of the facts. For that reason, there 

is no need on remand to determine precisely when the arbitrator’s award was 

delivered. 

Service 

{¶ 13} R.C. 2711.13 requires that “[n]otice of a motion to vacate, modify, 

or correct an award * * * be served upon the adverse party or his attorney * * * as 

prescribed by law for service of notice of a motion in an action.” The BOE argues 

that the date Cox made service under the governing Civil Rules is immaterial 

because R.C. 2711.13 requires “notice” within three months of delivery of the 

arbitration award. The BOE argues that the word “notice” requires receipt by the 

adverse party. In support, the BOE points to our statement in Welsh Dev. Co., Inc. 

v. Warren Cty. Regional Planning Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 471, 2011-Ohio-1604, 

946 N.E.2d 215, that “[a] person or entity is served when actual delivery is made 

to the intended target, usually a party to a lawsuit.” Id. at ¶ 38. 

{¶ 14} The BOE stretches our statement in Welsh Dev. Co. too far. First, 

we ruled on a different statute in that case, one governing the “filing” of an 

administrative appeal. Welsh Dev. Co. at ¶ 1. And second, our statement that a 

person is “served” when “actual delivery” is made was dicta not determinative of 
January Term, 2016 

7

the outcome in that case, made without citation to authority, and contradictory to 

the plain language of our Civil Rules. 

{¶ 15} We reject the BOE’s argument that the word “notice” as it is used in 

R.C. 2711.13 is meant to require actual receipt. When we consider the meaning of 

a statute, we read words and phrases in context and we give effect to every word 

and clause in the statute. State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local School Dist. Bd. 

of Edn., 131 Ohio St.3d 478, 2012-Ohio-1484, 967 N.E.2d 193, ¶ 18. Read in the 

context of the whole sentence, R.C. 2711.13 requires that “notice * * * must be 

served” and that service must be accomplished “as prescribed by law for service of 

notice of a motion in an action.” The BOE asks us to read the second half of this 

sentence out of the Revised Code. The General Assembly would not have pointed 

to the rules of service of a motion in an action (which are found in Civ.R. 5(B)) if 

it intended notice of service to be completed only when the notice is received by 

the party being served. Indeed, the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure are “prescribed 

by law.” See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 5(B). And R.C. 2711.13 does 

not otherwise expressly provide for rules conflicting with the Civil Rules, but 

instead references them. 

{¶ 16} R.C. 2711.13 requires service as provided in Civ.R. 5(B). This may 

be accomplished in a number of ways, including by hand delivery, United States 

mail, commercial carrier service, or e-mail. Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (f). 

When service is made by mail or commercial carrier, “service is complete upon 

mailing” or “upon delivery to the carrier.” Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c) and (d). Further, “[i]f 

a party is represented by an attorney, service under this rule must be made on the 

attorney unless the court orders service on the party.” Civ.R. 5(B)(1). Cox had two 

letters sent in an attempt to serve the BOE with notice of her motion. The letter 

sent on March 10, 2014, was mailed directly to the BOE by the clerk of court. Cox 

sent a second copy of the motion to the attorney for the BOE by certified mail on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

March 11, 2014. Because the BOE was represented by counsel, service was 

accomplished on March 11, 2014. 

{¶ 17} The dissenting opinion criticizes Cox for failing to attach a 

certificate of service to her motion pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(4) and suggests that the 

majority exercises leniency toward her by ignoring that requirement. Dissenting 

opinion at ¶ 35. But this court declined to consider the BOE’s sixth proposition of 

law, which raised the issue of Cox’s failure to comply with Civ.R. 5(B)(4). Instead, 

this court accepted only the BOE’s seventh proposition of law. 143 Ohio St.3d 

1477, 2015-Ohio-3958, 38 N.E.3d 899. 

{¶ 18} The BOE, not Cox, is before this court asking us to disturb a 

judgment below. And the BOE did not raise the issue of the certificate of service 

in the trial court in its motion to dismiss or in the court of appeals as an alternative 

reason for upholding the trial court’s dismissal. Civ.R. 5(B)(4) states simply that 

motions “shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed thereon or 

separately filed.” It is beyond question that the proper time for the BOE to have 

objected to Cox’s failure to comply with the rule was when the motion was pending 

in the trial court, because at that time, the trial court could have corrected the error 

by requiring Cox to comply with the rule. State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 

2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 21 (an error that a party could have called but 

did not call to the trial court’s attention at a time when the error could have been 

corrected will not be considered by an appellate court). The BOE forfeited all but 

plain error regarding the certificate of service because it did not timely object, id., 

and we decided not to review the issue for plain error, 2015-Ohio-3958. We also 

note that the trial court’s docket shows that the clerk sent a copy of Cox’s motion 

by certified mail directly to the BOE on March 10, 2014, and that that service was 

successful. 

 
January Term, 2016 

9

Delivery within Three Months of Service 

{¶ 19} Finally, we must determine whether the service accomplished by 

Cox on March 11, 2014, occurred “within three months after” the hypothetical 

delivery date of December 10, 2013. We measure the start and end point of the 

three-month time-limit in R.C. 2711.13 by applying relevant provisions of the 

Revised Code and the Rules of Civil Procedure governing service of motions. R.C. 

2711.13; R.C. 2711.05. Under the applicable Civil Rules and statutes, Cox 

successfully served the BOE within the three-month period under R.C. 2711.13. 

{¶ 20} R.C. 2711.13 provides a three-month period for service. R.C. 1.14 

provides that “[t]he time within which an act is required by law to be done shall be 

computed by excluding the first and including the last day.” Civ.R. 6(A) also 

governs computation of time: 

In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by 

these rules, by the local rules of any court, by order of court, or by 

any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from 

which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be 

included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included 

* * *. 

(Emphasis added.) Civ.R. 6(A). Applying the statute and the civil rule to this case, 

we exclude December 10, 2013, the day we assumed arguendo that the arbitration 

award was delivered. The three-month period under R.C. 2711.13 begins on the 

following day, December 11, 2013. 

{¶ 21} R.C. 1.45 defines the end date of any period of months by reference 

to the beginning date. “If a number of months is to be computed by counting the 

months from a particular day, the period ends on the same numerical day in the 

concluding month as the day of the month from which the computation is begun 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

* * *.” (Emphasis added.) The “same numerical day in the concluding month” in 

this case was March 11, 2014. R.C. 1.45. Service was made on that day. 

{¶ 22} The dissenting opinion asserts that we ignore “ample law” and fail 

to explain our “departure from the well-accepted anniversary rule for statutes of 

limitations.” Dissenting opinion at ¶ 31. These criticisms ring hollow because we 

rely on two legislative enactments that require a different result by their plain terms. 

We might have been persuaded by the intermediate court opinions cited by the 

dissent in the absence of clear legislative enactments to the contrary. The provision 

in R.C. 1.14 that requires us to compute the beginning of any period of time by 

starting with the day after a triggering event occurred has been around in similar 

form since 1880, R.S. 4951; Neiswander v. Brickner, 116 Ohio St. 249, 254, 156 

N.E. 138 (1927), and we have applied it as we do in this case, e.g., Heuck v. State 

ex rel. Mack, 127 Ohio St. 247, 187 N.E. 869 (1933) (applying G.C. 10216 [G.C. 

10216 is the successor of R.S. 4951 and the predecessor of R.C. 1.14]). In 1972, 

the legislature decided how we must compute the end of periods of time measured 

specifically in months. R.C. 1.45. The dissent would ignore both statutes and set 

the clock back a day. 

{¶ 23} In this case, the three-month period for service of Cox’s motion, R.C. 

2711.13, began on December 11, 2013. R.C. 1.14; Civ.R. 6(A). On the same 

numerical day three months later, R.C. 1.45, Cox sent notice of her motion to 

vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award to the BOE’s attorney by certified 

mail, Civ.R. 5(B)(1). Service was complete at the time of mailing, Civ.R. 

5(B)(2)(c), and was therefore timely. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 24} Accordingly, we reject the BOE’s proposition of law, affirm the 

judgment of the court of appeals, and remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. 

Judgment affirmed 
January Term, 2016 

11 

and cause remanded. 

PFEIFER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O’DONNELL and 

LANZINGER, JJ. 

_________________ 

O’CONNOR, C.J., dissenting. 

{¶ 25} I agree with the majority that by its plain terms, R.C. 2711.13 

requires that notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award be “served 

upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is 

delivered.” Further, I agree that pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c), service is 

accomplished at the time a document is mailed via United States mail to the last 

known address of the party or the party’s attorney. However, I disagree with the 

majority’s conclusion that appellee, Georgia Cox, timely served her notice of a 

motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award, and therefore, I dissent 

from its judgment affirming the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals. 

{¶ 26} R.C. 2711.13 states that “[n]otice of a motion to vacate, modify, or 

correct an [arbitration] award must be served upon the adverse party * * * within 

three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest, as prescribed by 

law for service of notice of a motion in an action.” As the majority recognizes, 

majority opinion at ¶ 15, Civ.R. 5(B) sets forth the requirements for service of 

notice of a motion in an action and, accordingly, the requirements for serving notice 

of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 

{¶ 27} Together, R.C. 2711.13 and Civ.R. 5(B) create four requirements for 

serving notice of a motion. First, notice must be served within three months after 

the award is delivered to the parties in interest. R.C. 2711.13. Second, notice must 

be served on an attorney if the party is represented, unless otherwise ordered by a 

court. Civ.R. 5(B)(1). Third, notice must be served in one of seven ways: 

1. Handing it to the person; 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

2. Leaving it at the person’s office in the prescribed manner; 

3. Leaving it at the person’s residence in the prescribed manner; 

4. Mailing it to the person’s last known address via U.S. mail; 

5. Delivering it to a commercial carrier for delivery to the person’s last 

known address; 

6. Leaving it with the clerk of courts if the person has no known address; 

or 

7. Sending it by e-mail or fax to the appropriate address or number. 

Civ.R. 5(B)(2). Civ.R. 5(B)(2) also describes when service is complete for certain 

of these methods, including explaining that when “mailing it to the person’s last 

known address by United States mail, * * * service is complete upon mailing.” 

Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c). And fourth, the notice “shall be accompanied by a completed 

proof of service which shall state the date and manner of service.” Civ.R. 5(B)(4). 

{¶ 28} Cox’s notice failed to meet the first and fourth requirements. 

{¶ 29} Cox failed to meet the first requirement because she did not mail a 

copy of the motion to appellant, the Dayton Public Schools Board of Education 

(“BOE”), until March 11, 2014, a day after the three-month deadline expired. 

{¶ 30} For purposes of analysis, the majority accepts as true the BOE’s 

assertion that the arbitrator delivered the award to the parties in interest on 

December 10, 2013. Majority opinion at ¶ 8. I will do the same. This court has 

held that R.C. 2711.13 contains a three-month statute of limitations, following 

delivery of an arbitration award, during which a party may file a motion to vacate, 

modify, or correct the award. Galion v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., 

Ohio Council 8, AFL-CIO, Local 2243, 71 Ohio St.3d 620, 622, 646 N.E.2d 813 

(1995). During this same three-month period, the filing party must serve notice of 

the motion upon the adverse party. R.C. 2711.13. 

{¶ 31} The majority relies on Civ.R. 6(A) and R.C. 1.14 to establish that the 

three-month time limit begins to run on the day after delivery of the award and thus 
January Term, 2016 

13 

that the limitations period expires on March 11, 2014. To reach this conclusion, 

the majority ignores ample law that a statute of limitations expires on the 

anniversary date of the antecedent action—in this case, the delivery of the 

arbitration award. Schon v. Natl. Tea Co., 19 Ohio App.2d 222, 224, 250 N.E.2d 

890 (7th Dist.1969); accord Mokrytzky v. Super Sys., Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

87929, 2007-Ohio-404, ¶ 10; Thomas v. Galinsky, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2003-G2537, 2004-Ohio-2789, ¶ 15-16; Babcock v. S.E. Johnson Co., 6th Dist. Wood No. 

91WD118, 1992 WL 163900, *1 (July 17, 1992); In re Estate of Fisher, 12 Ohio 

App.3d 150, 152, 467 N.E.2d 898 (12th Dist.1983);3 see also Copeland v. Bur. of 

Workers’ Comp., 192 Ohio App.3d 586, 2011-Ohio-813, 949 N.E.2d 1046, ¶ 13 

(5th Dist.); Tomasik v. Tomasik, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21980, 2004-Ohio-5558, 

¶ 2-3. The majority offers no explanation for its departure from the well-accepted 

anniversary rule for statutes of limitation and in support of its own calculation, cites 

cases that are inapposite because they involve laws with time limits provided in 

days, not months or years. When the settled anniversary rule is used to calculate 

time, it becomes clear that Cox was required to serve notice of her motion to the 

BOE by March 10, 2014, the three-month anniversary of delivery. Instead, she 

served the notice on March 11. For this reason alone, Cox failed to meet R.C. 

2711.13’s deadline and the trial court was correct to dismiss her motion. 

{¶ 32} Regarding the fourth requirement for service of notice of a motion, 

no certificate of service accompanied the notice served on the BOE. Neither the 

notice served on March 10 by the clerk’s office (which the majority appears to 

suggest satisfied the service requirement, majority opinion at ¶ 18) nor the notice 

 

3

 Many of these cases involve statutes of limitations measured in years, but they are still relevant in 

this case. R.C. 1.44 defines a year to mean “twelve consecutive months.” R.C. 1.45 concerns time 

computation and states that “[i]f a number of months is to be computed by counting the months from 

a particular day, the period ends on the same numerical day in the concluding month as the day of 

the month from which the computation is begun * * *.” Accordingly, a year may be computed by 

counting 12 months from a particular day. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

Cox untimely mailed to the BOE was accompanied by a certificate of service as 

required by Civ.R. 5(B)(4). 

{¶ 33} By arguing that Cox could have corrected her error had the BOE 

timely objected, the majority raises a red herring. Civ.R. 5(B)(4) does not simply 

provide that the court will not consider a document until a proper proof of service 

is included or separately filed. The rule also states that the served document “shall

be accompanied by a completed proof of service.” (Emphasis added.) Civ.R. 

5(B)(4). This court has found that the word shall is usually interpreted to make the 

provision in which it is contained mandatory, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Adjustment 

Serv. Corp., 89 Ohio St.3d 385, 389, 732 N.E.2d 362 (2000), and any other 

interpretation in this instance violates a rule that is often stated by this court that 

plain and unambiguous language must be applied as written, Erwin v. Bryan, 125 

Ohio St.3d 519, 2010-Ohio-2202, 929 N.E.2d 1019, ¶ 22, citing State ex rel. Potts 

v. Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., 93 Ohio St.3d 452, 456, 755 N.E.2d 886 

(2001). 

{¶ 34} There is no authority to support a reading of the rule that permits 

tolling of the time for service until a proper proof of service is filed. The statute of 

limitations had well expired by the time either the common pleas court or the BOE 

was aware that the notice had no proof of service. Accordingly, by the time either 

the court or the BOE could have alerted Cox to the deficiency and asked her to 

correct it, if they even had a duty to do so, her time to serve a notice accompanied 

by a certificate of service had elapsed. 

{¶ 35} The majority seems to exercise leniency because Cox filed her 

motion pro se. But on numerous occasions, we have made clear that “ ‘ “pro se 

litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and that 

they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.” ’ ” 

In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-

Ohio-5478, 3 N.E.3d 173, ¶ 22, quoting State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio 
January Term, 2016 

15 

St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of 

Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (10th 

Dist.2001). Accord Zukowski v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 53, 2010-Ohio-1652, 925 

N.E.2d 987, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 

Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 402, ¶ 1. The General Assembly 

established clear rules, and we should enforce them consistently and fairly as to all 

litigants. 

{¶ 36} Accordingly, I dissent. 

 O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 

_________________ 

Georgia B. Cox, pro se. 

Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Beverly A. Meyer, for appellant. 

Doll, Jansen & Ford and Susan D. Jansen, urging reversal for amicus curiae, 

Ohio Education Association. 

_________________