When refiling a new action, how is a year calculated under the Savings Statute and relevant Revised Code sections?

The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Sauter v. Integrity Cycles, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-88, clarifying when filing a claim under the savings statute of R.C. 2305.19, the claim must be filed within one year of the date that it was dismissed, not the day after, to comply with the statute. 

The majority opinion, written by Justice Shanahan, joined by Justices Fischer, DeWine, Brunner and Deters, discussed that in R.C. 2305.19, “within one year” means within a calendar year, consistent with the statutory framework established by R.C. 1.14, 1.44(B), and 1.45. The 10^th District construed those sections as excluding the day an event takes place , R.C. 1.14, counting from the following date, and including the terminating date as the same date in the terminating month as the beginning date, R.C. 1.45. 

The opinion discusses R.C. 1.14, noting that it provides “[t]he time within which an act is required by law to be done shall be computed by excluding the first and including the last day.”  The opinion indicates that in calculating a one-year period under R.C. 2305.19, the date of the failure other than on the merits would be excluded and counting would begin on the next day. 

The opinion continues that this is supported by R.C. 1.44(B) that informs that a “‘[y]ear’ means twelve consecutive months,” but because months have a varying number of days, R.C. 1.45 provides a special rule for the counting of time in months.  Under R.C. 1.45, the opinion says, time in months is measured “from a particular day,” and “ends on the same numerical day in the concluding month as the day of the month from which the computation is begun.” 

Key to understanding this decision is the fact that the Court defined “from a particular day” as the date a 41A dismissal was filed, and not the language in R.C. 1.14 stating time is computed by “excluding the first…day,” supra.

In everyday speech, the opinion says, “one year from today” means the same calendar date next year, not the day after. The Court found that the Court of Appeals departed from the plain meaning of the statute enacted by the General Assembly by reading “within one year” in R.C. 2305.19 to mean a year plus a day, ignoring the language in R.C. 1.14, as discussed below.

The dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Hawkins, says that the majority does not follow the law as written.  General Assembly enacted R.C. 1.44(B) and defined “year” as “twelve consecutive months.”  R.C. 1.14 states that in counting time under the Code, one excludes the first day in counting time and includes the last day.    The last day shall be, in most cases, the same numerical day of the month as was the first date used in computing time under R.C. 1.45. 

Going forward, this opinion guides how time is calculated for filing a claim under R.C. 2305.19, the savings statute, and likely other statutes imposing limitation dates stated in years as well.  Now is a good time to thoroughly check statute of limitations calendar entries and docket systems to be sure all deadlines are accurately recorded and responded to.

For further reading and a link to the oral argument, see, “One-Year Deadline to Refile Lawsuit Falls on Anniversary Date of Dismissal” (January 15, 2026) from Court News Ohio.

As always, if there are questions, we at OBLIC are here to help!

This information is made available solely for loss prevention purposes, which may include claim prevention techniques designed to minimize the likelihood of incurring a claim for legal malpractice. This information does not establish, report, or create the standard of care for attorneys. The material is not a complete analysis of the topic and should not be construed as providing legal advice. Please conduct your own appropriate legal research in this area. If you have questions about this email’s content and are an OBLIC policyholder, please contact us using the information above.