Whipps v. Ryan, 2013 Ohio 4382

Underlying dispute involves several parcels on East Main St., Columbus, Ohio, with prior appellate history in Whipps v. Ryan cases.
Sky Bank and others intervened and consolidated actions, including partition, foreclosure, and money damages, leading to orders foreclosing and selling the property.
DB Midwest purchased the loans and sought a vexatious litigator declaration against Ryan under R.C. 2323.52.
The trial court granted the vexatious litigator declaration against Ryan, requiring future leave to file pleadings.
Ryan challenged the orders as improper procedural vehicle and lack of proper initiation under R.C. 2323.52, prompting review on appeal.
Court held the trial court erred because R.C. 2323.52 requires a separate civil action initiated by complaint, not a motion in a pending case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DB Midwest properly commenced a vexatious litigator action under R.C. 2323.52	Ryan (plaintiff) argues a motion was insufficient; a complaint is required	DB Midwest contends a motion within a pending case suffices under R.C. 2323.52	No; R.C. 2323.52 requires a civil action initiated by complaint; motion was ineffective

Kinstle v. Union Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2007-Ohio-6024 (3d Dist. No. 14-07-16 (2007)) (motion not equivalent to commencing a civil action under R.C. 2323.52)
Helfrich v. Madison, 2009-Ohio-5140 (5th Dist. (2009)) (vexatious litigator order treated as provisional remedy and final appealable)
State ex rel. Tauwab v. Ambrose, 2012-Ohio-817 (8th Dist. (2012)) (common pleas court has jurisdiction to rule on vexatious litigator claim; appeal as remedy)
In re J.J., 2014-Ohio- ((Ohio Sup. Ct. 2006)) (voidable vs void judgments; context of jurisdiction)
Kopp v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., 2009-Ohio-2595 (10th Dist. (2009)) (filing a motion in pending case not equivalent to complaint)
Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 1989-Ohio-4782 ((Ohio)) (final order review; Civ.R. 54(B) applicability when provisional/remedial)