# Brown v. Lavery

> Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 1993 · 87 Ohio App. 3d 745

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3770485

## Case

- **Full name:** BROWN, Appellant, v. LAVERY, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 26, 1993
- **Citations:** 87 Ohio App. 3d 745; 622 N.E.2d 1179; 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2680
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Reece
- **Judges:** Baird, Dickinson, Reece
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3770485

## Opinion text

Reece, Judge,
dissenting.
I believe the majority has not emphasized the controlling part of R.C. 2305.-15(A). That statute states that the person’s absence from the state “shall not be computed as any part of
a period within which the action must be brought.”
(Emphasis added.) The majority properly refers to that period within which the action must be brought as the “statutory period” of two years. R.C. 2305.10. Clearly, it is during that statutory period that absences must occur in order to toll the time limitation and not during some additional, piggy-backed period of time.
I note that in the case of
Wetzel v. Weyant, supra,
cited by the majority, the absences occurred during the statutory period of two years.
I would affirm the judgment below.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3770485. Public record. Not legal advice.