(then, a judge of the court of common pleas or a justice of the peace). And, like § 5301.01(A), the provisions did not explicitly require the judge or justice of the peace to be identified as such; in fact, the statutes did not even expressly require that the judge or justice of the peace subscribe his or her name to the certificate of acknowledgment. Thus, although the Ohio Supreme Court has not ruled on the effect of omitting the certifying officer’s official title in the context of § 5301.01(A) itself, the language of § 5301.01(A) is sufficiently similar in all material respects to the statutory language considered by the Ohio Supreme Court in Johnston’s Lessee that this Court should consider Johnston’s Lessee as providing the controlling rule of law. Cf. Roberds, 313 B.R. at 737 (<HOLDING>). Importantly, based on the certificate’s
holding that the current party was sufficiently identified with the parties to the prior litigation holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding that although the ohio supreme court has not considered the text of the current  statute  the relevant language previously considered by that court remains unaltered in any significant aspect in the current statute holding that under the timeofdeeision rale courts ordinarily apply the statute in effect at the time of the decision in order to effectuate current policy recognizing obligation to read the language of the statute in light of previously established common law