Opinion
No. V89-51696.
Decided July 20, 1989.
Susan M. Bruder, for applicant.
The applicant, Kimberly S. Kirk, an adult, alleges that on December 29, 1987, in Madison County, Ohio, she sustained personal injury as the result of being assaulted by her husband, the offender, Marty R. Miller.
The reparations application was filed on January 20, 1989.
The issues raised in this claim deal with two similar, but independent, sections of the Revised Code.
Former R.C. 2743.56(C) stated:
"All applications for an award of reparations shall be filed as follows:
"* * *
"(2) If the victim of the criminally injurious conduct was an adult, within one year after the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct." See 141 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5475, 5476-5477.
Former R.C. 2743.60(A) stated in part:
"Neither a single commissioner nor a panel of court of claims commissioners shall make an award of reparations to any claimant who, if the victim of the criminally injurious conduct was an adult, did not file his application for an award of reparations within one year after the date of the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct that caused the injury or death for which he is seeking an award of reparations * * *." See 141 Ohio Laws, supra, at 5479.
Former R.C. 2743.60(A), like former R.C. 2743.56(C), required an adult applicant to file an application within one year after the date of the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct. Former R.C. 2743.60(A) deals directly with the power of this court to make an award. The section is mandatory in its terms and clearly limits the court's subject matter jurisdiction. This court has no jurisdiction to make an award of reparations where the application was filed more than one year after the date of the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct against an adult victim.
A judge of the Court of Claims has reviewed and ruled upon many fact patterns and legal arguments for creating an exception to the limitation imposed by former R.C. 2743.56(C) and former R.C. 2743.60(A). The highest judicial authority within the framework of the Crime Victims' Compensation Act, R.C. 2743.51 et seq., has upheld a strict application of the one-year filing requirement, viz., In re Clark (1983), 8 Ohio Misc.2d 34, 8 OBR 576, 457 N.E.2d 965 (tolling of statute by reason of infancy); In re Mann (Mar. 14, 1980), Ct. of Claims No. V78-3211jud, unreported (postal delivery filing one day late); In re Mowery (Apr. 28, 1980), Ct. of Claims No. V79-3088jud, unreported (alleged erroneous advice by lawyer); In re White (Apr. 28, 1980), Ct. of Claims No. V79-3258jud, unreported (additional time required for completion of application with supporting documents — estoppel by state); In re Doble (Feb. 24, 1986), Ct. of Claims No. V84-42958jud, unreported (tolling of statute by reason of lack of discovery of criminally injurious conduct). Accordingly, since the amendments to R.C. 2743.56(C) and 2743.60(A) did not change the way an application is treated for criminally injurious conduct committed against an adult, prior to March 13, 1988, the above precedent cases apply to the case at bar.
The applicant contends in her response that she made a good faith attempt to file her claim before the expiration of the one-year time period and hence her reparations application should not be denied pursuant to former R.C. 2743.56(C)(2) or former R.C. 2743.60(A). This argument is not well taken.
In In re Campbell (Apr. 2, 1981), Ct. of Claims No. V78-3817jud, unreported, the court stated:
"Where the appellant's reparations application was mailed to the former address of the Court of Claims within one year of the criminally injurious conduct, but was not received at the Court's current address until after the one year requirement had expired, and the appellant argued that the State was estopped from applying the statute of limitations, the court found that the State was not estopped from applying the statute of limitations and upheld the one year filing requirement."
Therefore the applicant's claim must be denied, pursuant to former R.C. 2743.56(C)(2), former R.C. 2743.60(A) and In re Campbell.
Findings of Fact
1. The alleged crime took place on December 29, 1987.
2. The reparations application was filed on January 20, 1989.
Conclusion of Law
The application does not comply with the provisions of former R.C. 2743.56(C)(2), former R.C. 2743.60(A) or the court's decision in In re Campbell, supra.
The application for reparations will be denied and an order in conformity with this opinion will be entered.
Order
1. The claim is denied and judgment is entered for the state of Ohio.
2. Costs are assumed by the reparations fund.
So ordered.