2021 Ohio 3428
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Smartlink leased office space from CUC and vacated the premises during the COVID-19 pandemic; CUC sued for unpaid rent.
- The clerk attempted service under Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a) by certified mail to Smartlink’s registered agent and principal place of business.
- Postal carriers did not obtain in-person signatures; instead the certified-mail return receipts were marked with handwritten notations “Covid 19” or “C19.”
- No person at either address signed the receipts; CUC alleged USPS pandemic procedures justified the notations.
- The trial court entered default judgment for CUC after Smartlink did not timely respond; Smartlink appealed, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mail carrier’s notation of "Covid 19" or "C19" on a certified-mail return receipt satisfies Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a)’s requirement that service be "evidenced by return receipt signed by any person" | The USPS changed procedures during COVID-19 and carriers were authorized to record recipient initials/name; the "Covid 19" notation should be treated as valid evidence of delivery | The notations do not identify any person who received the mail and thus are not a signature under Civ.R. 4.1; without proper service, the court lacked personal jurisdiction | The court held that the notations "Covid 19" or "C19" do not constitute a valid signature under Civ.R. 4.1(A); default judgment vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1986) (default judgment entered when a defendant fails to defend)
- MB W. Chester, L.L.C. v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Revision, 126 Ohio St.3d 430 (Ohio 2010) (a trial court lacks jurisdiction over a person not served)
- Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (service of process or waiver is prerequisite to exercising power over a party)
- Omni Capital Internatl., Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (service is the procedure by which a court asserts jurisdiction over a person)
- Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438 (1945) (same jurisdictional principle regarding service)
- Fraley v. Estate of Oeding, 138 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2014) (personal jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)