Wright v. Proctor-Donald
2013 Ohio 1973
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Wright retained Proctor-Donald to handle a dental malpractice claim against Dr. Crites; the limit for filing expired May 30, 2009; she was withdrawn by Proctor-Donald on November 17, 2009.
- Appellee advised in October 2009 that the dental claim deadline had elapsed; Wright filed a pro se legal malpractice complaint May 10, 2010.
- Trial court dismissed the May 2010 complaint for failure to state a claim, sua sponte, on May 19, 2010; Wright obtained counsel and re-filed October 15, 2010.
- Wright dismissed the October 2010 action March 3, 2011 with reservation to re-file within one year; she re-filed March 1, 2012 alleging negligent failure to sue before the dental statute expired.
- Appellee moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(B)(6); trial court granted dismissal July 20, 2012, holding the claim barred by the statute of limitations.
- Appellant appeals arguing savings statute should apply and the court erred in its statutory construction and prospective applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the savings statute apply to the March 1, 2012 filing? | Wright is entitled to use RC 2305.19 since dismissal was otherwise than on merits. | Savings statute applies only once; March 2012 filing is barred. | Yes, it applies to permit filing within either one year or original term, but limits later use. |
| Was the savings statute properly liberally construed? | Statute should be liberally construed. | Plain language governs; no liberal construction required. | Statute unambiguous; liberal construction not required. |
| Did the court misinterpret the legislative intent of RC 2305.19? | Statute should be read to broaden relief. | Plain language limits relief to actions dismissed otherwise than on merits. | Court correctly interpreted the statute. |
| Should the savings statute be applied prospectively or retrospectively? | Decision may apply prospectively. | Retroactive application appropriate. | Retrospective application affirmed; no exceptional circumstances warranting prospective-only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tripplett v. Beachwood Village, 158 Ohio App.3d 465 (7th Dist. 2004) (current statute differs; not controlling where relevant language changed)
- Thomas v. Freeman, 79 Ohio St.3d 221 (1997) (savings statute cannot be used to keep actions alive indefinitely)
- Hancock v. Kroger Co., 103 Ohio App.3d 266 (10th Dist. 1995) (savings statute limits finality concerns)
- Dargent v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 171 Ohio App.3d 439 (2006-Ohio-6179) (savings statute cannot apply twice to same case)
- Eichler v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 2008-Ohio-3095 (7th Dist.) (post-2004 analysis confirms single-use constraint)
- Cero Realty Corp. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 171 Ohio St. 82 (1960) (liberal construction generally favored, but statute unambiguous)