In Brubaker v. Ross, Franklin App. No. 01AP-1431, 2002 Ohio 4396, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed a situation where an estate filed a negligence action, but later voluntarily dismissed the action. After the executor re-filed the complaint, the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice. The estate re-filed the complaint a second time, and the defendant moved to dismiss. The court of appeals found the estate could not use the savings statute more than once to save an action, Brubaker, at paragraph 12. The court stated: "the savings statute may not be used to keep actions alive indefinitely. Romine v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 650, 654, 737 N.E.2d 586. To allow a plaintiff to use this statute more than once would 'frustrate the purpose of the civil rules which are intended to prevent indefinite filings.' Id. at 269, 659 N.E.2d 336. Other Ohio courts are in accord with this view. Estate of Carlson v. Tippett (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 489, 491, 702 N.E.2d 143; Nagy v. Patterson (1994), Lorain App. No. 94CA005837, 1994 Ohio App; Seawright v. Zabell (1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55232, 1989 Ohio App; Mihalcin v. Hocking College (2000), Athens App. No. 99CA32, 2000 Ohio App. The Ohio Supreme Court, in dicta, has agreed with this proposition. Thomas v. Freeman (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 221, 227, 1997 Ohio 395, 680 N.E.2d 997 (noting that 'the savings statute can be used only once to refile a case')." Id. The Franklin County Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that because the trial court dismissed the matter without prejudice, this implies the estate can re-file the complaint. The Brubaker court held a dismissal without prejudice means the dismissal has no res judicata effect, but it does not toll the statute of limitations or otherwise extend the time for re-filing, Id. at paragraph 13.