2019 Ohio 2674
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Manitou obtained a default money judgment against Woolum on March 8, 2012; the judgment later became dormant.
- Manitou filed a motion to revive the dormant judgment on January 9, 2018; the clerk served Woolum with a summons and a copy of the motion by certified mail, and certified mail service was made on January 18, 2018.
- A magistrate issued a Conditional Order of Revivor on January 25, 2018, scheduling a March 20, 2018 show-cause hearing and directing service by certified mail; the certified copy was returned unclaimed and Woolum was later served by ordinary mail on March 5, 2018.
- Woolum did not respond within 28 days to the motion for revivor (deadline under Civ.R. 4(F) was February 15, 2018); he and counsel appeared for the March 20 date but the docket shows no hearing, and he filed an objection on March 21, 2018.
- The trial court overruled the objection as untimely on April 26, 2018 and revived the judgment; Woolum appealed arguing denial of procedural due process and lack of opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manitou) | Defendant's Argument (Woolum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Woolum’s objection to revivor was timely under Civ.R.4(F) | Service of the motion on Jan 18 started the 28‑day response period; no timely response was filed, so revivor occurred Feb 15 | Woolum relied on the magistrate’s conditional order and thus had a right to the March 20 hearing; objection filed Mar 21 was timely after alleged non‑hearing | Held: Objection untimely. Service of the motion on Jan 18 began the 28‑day period; failure to respond by Feb 15 meant revivor occurred and trial court did not err |
| Whether issuing a conditional order affected Woolum’s duty to respond to the motion for revivor | Conditional orders are not required by R.C. 2325.15/2325.17; regardless, Civ.R.4(F) response deadline controls | The magistrate’s conditional order created an expectation of a hearing and Woolum reasonably relied on it | Held: The statutory revivor procedure (and Civ.R.4(F) deadline) governs; conditional orders are not mandated and cannot excuse failure to timely respond |
| Whether Woolum was denied procedural due process by not receiving a hearing before revivor | Proper notice was given by personal service of the motion; Woolum had the opportunity to respond and failed to do so | Denial of a show‑cause hearing (no hearing on March 20) deprived Woolum of meaningful opportunity to be heard | Held: No due process violation — Woolum received notice and the statutory opportunity to respond; his inaction caused his predicament |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bowen, 130 Ohio St. 347 (Ohio 1936) (notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential elements of due process)
- Leroy Jenkins Evangelistic Assn., Inc. v. Equities Diversified, Inc., 64 Ohio App.3d 82 (10th Dist. 1989) (R.C.2325.17 requires opportunity to show cause before revivor; hearing required)