2014 Ohio 732
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- LVNV sued Burns in October 2008 for an outstanding account balance; the complaint was sent by certified mail to Burns’s daughter at 3172 El Camino Drive, Springfield, Ohio, and the daughter signed the return receipt.
- Burns did not respond and the court entered a default judgment after LVNV’s Civ.R. 55(A) motion.
- In February 2012 LVNV garnished Burns’s Texas bank accounts; Burns filed objections asserting the funds were federal benefits and that he never received the complaint.
- A garnishment hearing was held; the court found some funds exempt as federal benefits and ordered returned.
- Burns sought leave and filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion claiming improper service (he had moved to Texas and lived in the Philippines at times); trial court denied relief.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, finding service by certified mail to the daughter’s residence was reasonably calculated to reach Burns and that Burns failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense required for Civ.R. 60(B) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service by certified mail to daughter’s address | Service to daughter’s residence was reasonably calculated to reach Burns; receipt signed | Burns lived in Texas/Philippines and did not receive the complaint | Service presumed valid; receiving person at defendant’s residence suffices; court could conclude service was proper |
| Whether default judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction | Proper service established, so judgment not void | Judgment void for lack of proper service; Burns lacked actual notice | Court found personal jurisdiction existed (service valid); judgment not void |
| Appropriateness of Civ.R. 60(B) relief | Even if jurisdiction existed, movant must show meritorious defense; Burns presented none | Burns sought relief for excusable neglect/nonservice | Relief denied: Burns failed to show a meritorious defense and did not rebut presumption of service |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403 (Ohio 1980) (service by certified mail is effective when reasonably calculated to reach defendant)
- Castellano v. Kosydar, 42 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio 1975) (service presumed when envelope received by any person at defendant’s residence)
- State ex rel. Ballard v. O’Donnell, 50 Ohio St.3d 182 (Ohio 1990) (judgment rendered without proper service is void for lack of personal jurisdiction)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (movant seeking Civ.R. 60(B) relief must show meritorious defense)
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. First Am. Properties, Inc., 113 Ohio App.3d 233 (Ohio Ct. App.) (presumption of proper service when recipient receives process at defendant’s residence)
- Griffin v. Braswell, 187 Ohio App.3d 281 (Ohio Ct. App.) (presumption of service may be rebutted by sufficient evidence of nonservice)