2022 Ohio 239
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Belisle Construction sued Kenneth Perry d/b/a Perry’s Heating & Cooling on Sept. 29, 2014 for breach of contract, fraud, trespass to chattels, and theft; Perry did not answer.
- Belisle obtained a default judgment on Jan. 21, 2015 after serving the complaint by certified mail to Perry’s listed address.
- Perry moved on Feb. 23, 2017 under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) to vacate the default judgment, alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (claims subject to arbitration) and lack of personal jurisdiction (improper service).
- The trial court held a hearing on May 9, 2017, denied Perry’s motion on Sept. 5, 2017, and Perry appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo the jurisdictional questions and for abuse of discretion the trial court’s denial of relief, and affirmed the trial court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Belisle) | Defendant's Argument (Perry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the dispute was subject to arbitration | Belisle: arbitration right was waived by Perry’s failure to timely move for a stay and by his inaction | Perry: the written arbitration agreement (if any) required arbitration, so court lacked jurisdiction | Held: Perry waived arbitration by failing to move for a stay and by litigating passively; court retained jurisdiction and default judgment not void |
| Whether the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because service was invalid | Belisle: certified-mail receipt signed at Perry’s known address creates a presumption of valid service | Perry: the signature is not his (or was forged) and he never received the complaint | Held: Perry failed to rebut the presumption of valid service; trial court had personal jurisdiction; default judgment not void |
| Proper procedural vehicle for challenging an allegedly void judgment | Belisle: a voidness claim need not satisfy Civ.R. 60(B) elements; but here judgment was not void | Perry: filed under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) arguing the judgment was void due to jurisdictional defects | Held: even if treated as a common-law motion to vacate (not Civ.R. 60(B)), the trial court properly denied relief because the judgment was not void |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (establishes abuse-of-discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B) rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (sets the three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (void-judgment doctrine and inherent judicial power to vacate void judgments)
- CompuServe, Inc. v. Trionfo, 91 Ohio App.3d 157 (treating a mislabeled Civ.R. 60(B) motion as a common-law motion to vacate a void judgment)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (definition and analysis of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Mills v. Jaguar–Cleveland Motors, Inc., 69 Ohio App.2d 111 (failure to seek stay can constitute waiver of arbitration)
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (personal jurisdiction requires proper service of process)
- Potter v. Troy, 78 Ohio App.3d 372 (presumption of proper service when Civil Rules governing service are followed)