G. Lieu, Inc. v. E. Constr. & Remodeling, L.L.C.
2018 Ohio 56
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In July 2010 G. Lieu, Inc. (doing business as Thai Asian Bistro) contracted with E. Construction & Remodeling, LLC (ECR) for patio work; check for $30,000 paid to ECR. ECR’s sole member is Ernest Chen.
- Appellant filed suit (Nov. 2010) against ECR and Chen for breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment; service attempts were made to an address listed in the contract (Fallhaven address).
- Certified-mail service attempts were returned (claimed/refused) and ordinary-mail service was entered of record by the clerk; no answer was filed and plaintiff obtained a default judgment in July 2011.
- Chen moved to vacate the default judgment in March 2014, submitting testimony and documents (divorce decree, pay stubs, W-2s, school billing) showing he did not reside or conduct business at the Fallhaven address when service was attempted.
- A magistrate held an evidentiary hearing, found Chen credible, concluded the presumption of proper service was rebutted as to Chen, and vacated the default judgment as to him; the trial court adopted that decision.
- Chen later moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, concluding Chen was not a contracting party and plaintiff failed to present evidence to pierce the corporate veil.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment against Chen was void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service | Service complied with Civ.R. 4.6(C)/(D); mailing by clerk creates conclusive proof of service (plaintiff relied on certified/ordinary mail entries) | Mailing created only a rebuttable presumption; Chen presented credible evidence he neither lived at nor received mail at the Fallhaven address and thus rebutted service | Court affirmed trial court: presumption rebutted; vacatur of default judgment as to Chen affirmed |
| Whether refusal vs. unclaimed certified-mail distinction under Civ.R. 4.6(C) vs 4.6(D) barred rebuttal of service | Returned certified mail marked "refused" should support conclusive presumption of service and preclude rebuttal | Civil Rule presumption is rebuttable regardless of "refused" vs "unclaimed" marking; plaintiff must still overcome evidence of nonreceipt | Court held any magistrate conflation of 4.6(C)/(D) was harmless; no authority that Civ.R.4.6(C) presumption is unrebuttable |
| Admissibility/relevance of U.S. Postal regulations regarding refusal of certified mail | Postal rules would support inference that "refused" means defendant consciously rejected service | Regulations were not in the record and plaintiff failed to proffer them per Civ.R. 44.1; magistrate properly excluded/not considered them | Court affirmed exclusion/presumption of regularity due to absence of postal regs in record; plaintiff bears record burden |
| Whether summary judgment on veil-piercing and merits was improper | Plaintiff argued for veil-piercing to hold Chen liable for ECR's obligations (raised for first time in response) | Chen showed he was not a party to the contract; plaintiff offered no evidentiary support for veil-piercing (no affidavits/depositions/docs showing control, fraud, or resulting injury) | Court granted summary judgment for Chen: plaintiff failed to meet burden to create a genuine issue on veil-piercing or on underlying claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (void judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (trial court factfinding and credibility assessment)
- Rafalski v. Oates, 17 Ohio App.3d 65 (address where defendant will receive process; rebutting presumption of service)
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 274 (three‑part test to pierce corporate veil)
- Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 506 (restating piercing test from Belvedere)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (summary judgment burdens and reciprocal response requirement)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (appellate presumption of regularity when record is incomplete)