Rutushin v. Arditi, 2013 Ohio 1427

Rutushin sued Arditi on Nov 21, 2011 for forcible entry and detainer and unpaid rent, late fees, and damages tied to a Boardman Township apartment lease.
Rutushin served a 3-day notice to vacate on Nov 5, 2011; service was effected by posting at Arditi's residence via police.
Hearing on the forcible entry claim was reset due to a questionable continuance and related filings, delaying resolution.
Arditi failed to appear at the Jan 9, 2012 hearing; a writ of possession was granted to Rutushin and damages hearing was scheduled for Mar 26, 2012.
Arditi filed objections to the writ decision on Jan 23, 2012; the magistrate denied the motions on Mar 21, 2012 and the trial court adopted that decision on Apr 24, 2012.
Damages were awarded to Rutushin in the Apr 3, 2012 magistrate decision, adopted by the court on Apr 24, 2012; Arditi attempted to appeal by fax in May 2012 and June 2012 but lacked an original signature, and the appeal was ultimately untimely and dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal was timely filed.	Rutushin	Arditi	Untimely; not within 30 days of judgment
Whether the April 17, 2012 order was a final appealable order.	Rutushin	Arditi	Not final; dismissal still appropriate; appeal untimely
Whether fax filings could perfect the appeal.	Rutushin	Arditi	Facsimile filings not permitted; paper file required

Louden v. A.O. Smith Corp., 121 Ohio St.3d 95 (2009) (paper notice of appeal required unless local rule permits electronic filing; facsimile not enough)
Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (finality required for appellate review; denial of a motion to dismiss not final)
Gen. Am. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (final order necessary for appeal; finality doctrine)
Polikoff v. Adam, 67 Ohio St.3d 100 (1993) (denial of dismissal ordinarily not a final appealable order)