Court Opinion

ID: 9882693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:18:37.125896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:42.813037
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Givens v. Longwell, 2023-Ohio-3330.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  BELMONT COUNTY

                                        GREG P. GIVENS,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                                    v.

                                      JOHN D. LONGWELL,

                                       Defendant-Appellee.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                       Case Nos. 22 BE 0038, 22 BE 0039, 22 BE 0040

                                    Civil Appeal from the
                        Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio
                         Case Nos. 22 CV 206, 22 CV 207, 22 CV 208

                                          BEFORE:
                   Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                 Dismissed.

Greg P. Givens, Pro se, P.O. Box 117, Bellaire, Ohio 43906, Plaintiff-Appellant and

Atty. M. Winiesdorffer-Schirripa, Atty. G. Thomas Smith, Smith Law PLLC, 516 West
Main Street, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26301, and Atty. Bradley A. Powell, Droder &
Miller, Co., L.P.A., 250 East Fifth Street, Suite 700, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for
Defendant-Appellee.

                                     Dated: September 15, 2023
                                                                                           –2–

HANNI, J.

       {¶1}    This matter involves three separate appeals by Plaintiff-Appellant, Greg P.
Givens, from three judgments by the Belmont County Common Pleas Court dismissing
Appellant’s three lawsuits against Defendant-Appellee, John D. Longwell, without
prejudice.
       {¶2}    All of Appellant’s claims/cases arise from the same facts.             Appellee
purchased a house at 3735 Highland Avenue in Shadyside (the House) at a sheriff’s sale.
The deed transferring title was filed on June 28, 2022. The House was formerly owned
by Appellant’s grandparents, Joseph and Mary Givens. Joseph Givens died in 2007 and
was predeceased by his wife.
       {¶3}    In case 22 CV 206 (22-BE-0038), Appellant filed a complaint for replevin
against Appellee on July 18, 2022.           Appellant asserted Appellee took his personal
property (including items such as four automobiles, antiques, heirlooms, clothing, pets,
and business equipment) on July 6, 2022, by way of wrongful eviction. That same day,
Appellant filed an Affidavit of Inability to Prepay Court Costs for this action, requesting
that the trial court waive the filing fee.
       {¶4}    In case 22 CV 207 (22-BE-0039), Appellant filed a complaint against
Appellee on July 19, 2022. This complaint asserted what Appellant termed “Constitutional
Claims,” which included claims for “injury and tort damages,” “breach of contract,” and
“other appropriate claims” and sought a declaratory judgment. That same day, Appellant
filed an Affidavit of Inability to Prepay Court Costs for this action, requesting that the trial
court waive the filing fee.
       {¶5}    In case 22 CV 208 (22-BE-0040), Appellant filed a complaint against
Appellee on July 19, 2022.          This complaint also asserted what Appellant termed
“Constitutional Claims,” which included claims for “injury and tort damages,” “breach of
contract,” and “other appropriate claims” and sought monetary relief. That same day,
Appellant filed an Affidavit of Inability to Prepay Court Costs for this action, requesting
that the trial court waive the filing fee.

Case No. 22 BE 0038, 22 BE 0039, 22 BE 0040
                                                                                          –3–

       {¶6}   On July 19, 2022, the trial court put on identical judgments in each of the
three cases declining to waive the $225 filing fee in each case. The court noted that
Appellant owed $1,202.65 in unpaid court costs from six prior cases, all of which were
decided adversely against him. The court directed the clerk of courts to dismiss each
case, without prejudice, unless Appellant paid the filing fee for each case in full by August
19, 2022.
       {¶7}   On August 22, 2022, the trial court noted that Appellant had failed to pay
the required costs in each case. Therefore, the court dismissed all three cases without
prejudice.
       {¶8}   Appellant filed timely notices of appeal in each case on August 25, 2022.
Appellant filed his briefs in these cases on February 1, 2023. Appellee filed his reply
briefs on March 7, 2023.
       {¶9}   On April 20, 2023, on the motion of the Belmont County Prosecutor’s Office,
the trial court found Appellant to be a vexatious litigator. Consequently, on May 22, 2023,
this court put on a judgment entry granting Appellant 14 days to comply with R.C. 2323.52
(the vexatious litigator statute) as it relates to these appeals.       The statute requires
vexatious litigators to obtain leave of court before continuing with any legal proceedings
instituted in the court of appeals prior to entry of the order declaring them to be a vexatious
litigator. Subsequently, on June 1, 2023, Appellant filed motions for leave to proceed in
these appeals, which this Court granted.
       {¶10} Initially, we must address whether these cases involve final appealable
orders.
       {¶11} Appellee asserts that because the trial court dismissed each of these cases
“without prejudice,” the judgments are not final appealable orders. Thus, Appellee asks
that we dismiss these three appeals.
       {¶12} This court has held that generally, an involuntary dismissal of a complaint
without prejudice is not a final appealable order because a party may refile the complaint.
Selmon v. Crestview Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 184 Ohio App.3d 317, 2009-Ohio-5078,
920 N.E.2d 1017, ¶ 2 (7th Dist.); Clones v. Kohli, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 02 CA 121,
2003-Ohio-3472, ¶ 5.

Case No. 22 BE 0038, 22 BE 0039, 22 BE 0040
                                                                                    –4–

      {¶13} Appellant’s complaints in each of these three cases were dismissed without
prejudice. Because they were dismissed without prejudice, Appellant was able to refile
each of the complaints again. And Appellant did in fact timely refile each of the three
complaints. Thus, the judgments in these cases are not final appealable orders.
      {¶14} Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed for lack of final appealable orders.

Waite, J., concurs.

Robb, J., concurs.

Case No. 22 BE 0038, 22 BE 0039, 22 BE 0040
[Cite as Givens v. Longwell, 2023-Ohio-3330.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, these appeals are
dismissed for lack of final appealable orders. Costs to be taxed against the Appellant.
        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

                                       NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.