2016 Ohio 803
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Cincinnati Equine sued Sandringham Farm in Ohio municipal court in 2008 for $2,142.45 for veterinary services, alleging most services were provided in Hamilton County, Ohio.
- Complaint was served on Thomas and Mrs. Young at out-of-state addresses; Young made several pro se filings but the corporation did not otherwise appear.
- Cincinnati Equine moved for summary judgment with an affidavit asserting an agreement with Sandringham Farm and that services were performed in both Ohio and Kentucky; the trial court granted summary judgment on November 5, 2008.
- Sandringham Farm did not timely appeal the summary-judgment order but later (in 2014), through counsel, moved to void the judgment, supported by Young’s affidavit claiming the horses were his (not the LLC’s), most care occurred in Kentucky, and there was no agreement with the LLC.
- The trial court denied the motion to void without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court found conflicting evidence on ownership, contracting, and where services occurred and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment | Cincinnati Equine: had an agreement with Sandringham and performed services in Ohio (invoice + affidavit) | Sandringham: did not appear before judgment; later disputes ownership/contract and location of services | Not reached on merits on appeal (order became final and appeal time passed); assignment overruled as untimely |
| Whether striking Young’s pro se answer was error | N/A (Cincinnati Equine proceeded to judgment) | Young attempted pro se answer on behalf of LLC | Not reviewable on appeal (decision final in 2008); assignment overruled as untimely |
| Whether the judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction | Cincinnati Equine: service + affidavit asserting services in Ohio support jurisdiction | Sandringham: Young’s verified affidavit denies LLC agreement, alleges horses/personnel/most care in Kentucky — contests jurisdiction | Court held trial court erred by denying motion to void without an evidentiary hearing; remanded for hearing to resolve jurisdictional facts |
| Standard/procedure for resolving collateral attack on judgment for lack of jurisdiction | Jurisdiction may be established by affidavit/evidence; summary ruling ok if record clear | When conflicting sworn statements exist, defendant entitled to evidentiary hearing before court rules on motion to void | Court: conflicts in the record required an evidentiary hearing; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Compuserve, Inc. v. Trionfo, 91 Ohio App.3d 157 (10th Dist. 1993) (judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction is void; evidentiary hearing on jurisdictional facts may be required)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (distinction between specific and general jurisdiction principles)
- Internatl. Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemp. Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (continuous and systematic contacts standard for general jurisdiction)
- U.S. Sprint Communications Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Mr. K’s Foods, Inc., 68 Ohio St.3d 181 (1994) (two-part Ohio test: long-arm statute analysis then due-process analysis)
- Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232 (1994) (broad construction of "transacting any business" under Ohio long-arm statute)
- Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (2014) (void judgments are subject to collateral attack at any time)