In Allen v. McBride, 105 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004 Ohio 7112, 821 N.E.2d 1001, the Ohio Supreme Court was asked to decide whether R.C. 2305.19 applied in will contest actions.
In that case, Allen, the plaintiff, had filed a will contest action concerning the validity of a decedent's will.
Allen voluntarily dismissed her complaint without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A), and then refiled her complaint the next day under R.C. 2305.19. Upon finding that R.C. 2305.19 did not apply to will contest actions, the trial court dismissed the complaint.
The Tenth Appellate District reversed the trial court's decision, holding that R.C. 2305.19 applied. See Allen v. McBride, Franklin App. No. 03AP-432, 2003 Ohio 7158.
The supreme court in Allen reviewed three of its prior decisions involving R.C 2305.19, to wit: Reese v. Ohio State Univ. Hosp. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 162, 6 Ohio B. 221, 451 N.E.2d 1196, in which it held that R.C. 2305.19 applied to suits against the state under the Court of Claims Act; Lewis, 21 Ohio St.3d 1, 21 Ohio B. 266, 487 N.E.2d 285, in which it held that R.C. 2305.19 applied to workers' compensation complaints filed in the common pleas court; and Osborne v. AK Steel/Armco Steel Co., 96 Ohio St.3d 368, 2002 Ohio 4846, 775 N.E.2d 483, in which it held that R.C. 2305.19 applied to R.C. Chapter 4112 age-discrimination actions. The supreme court pointed out in Allen how it declined to hold in Osborne "that a plaintiff has entered the 'twilight zone' where dismissal of her complaint without prejudice after expiration of the limitation period of the relevant statute has the same effect as a dismissal on the merits, barring any further action with respect to the same claim." Allen, 105 Ohio St.3d at P15.