What authority does the Clerk of Courts have to reject a filing?

Not as much as some clerks seem to think, says the Fifth District in State ex rel. Kess v. Antonoplos.

James Kess was a party to a divorce action pending in Delaware County in 2015. A magistrate issued a decision and Kess attempted to file objections, but the clerk rejected the filing on the ground that it was untimely. Kess then sought a writ of mandamus that would compel the clerk to accept the filing.

The court of appeals ruled that the refusal to file was improper, and issued the writ, explaining that "in the absence of instructions from the court to the contrary," the clerk's duty is "to accept for filing any paper presented to him," provided that it's in proper form and accompanied by any necessary fee. Whether the objections were timely is a legal matter that must be decided by the court, not the clerk.

Oddly, the court did not cite any statutes in chapter 2303, even though they would appear to control. Among those are R.C. 2303.09, which provides that the clerk "shall file together and carefully preserve in his office all papers delivered to him for that purpose," and R.C. 2303.08, which says that a clerk "may refuse to accept for filing any pleading or paper submitted for filing by a person who has been found to be a vexatious litigator," unless the person has obtained leave to file. So far as I'm aware, there are no other scenarios in which a clerk of the court of common pleas may refuse a filing. (In fact, it's not even necessarily clear to me that a common pleas court clerk can refuse a filing for lack of a fee. Civil Rule 5(E)(3) provides that a clerk may refuse an electronic filing that requires but isn't accompanied by a fee, but there's no similar rule for paper filings. Things are different for the Supreme Court; its rules specifically state at least 15 scenarios in which the clerk "shall refuse" to file certain documents.)

It's alarming how often things like this happen. I've had filings rejected for seemingly arbitrary reasons, including for things like supposed noncompliance with an unwritten rule about the form of proposed orders attached to motions. Hopefully this decision makes the rounds among the state's clerks of courts and puts a damper on these practices.