Mtge. Bank Corp. v. WWIO, Ltd.
2016 Ohio 7069
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mortgage Banc sued to foreclose a mortgage on 1258 E. Livingston and named WWIO (appellant) and Soroush Firouzmandi (appellee) as defendants; appellee admitted receiving the foreclosure complaint but did not answer.
- WWIO filed an answer and a cross-claim against Firouzmandi (alleging breach of a 2006 land contract) and mailed the answer/cross-claim by certified mail to Firouzmandi's home; the return receipt was signed by his wife, Shahin Efati.
- Firouzmandi did not answer the cross-claim; WWIO obtained a default judgment and a magistrate later awarded damages; the trial court adopted that decision.
- Firouzmandi moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing he never actually received the cross-claim and that service was therefore invalid; at the hearing both he and his wife testified (wife spoke limited English, took medication, sometimes discarded or misplaced mail).
- The magistrate denied the motion, finding the signed return receipt created a presumption of valid service that neither party rebutted; the trial court sustained Firouzmandi's objections, found the presumption rebutted, held the default judgment void for lack of service, and rejected the magistrate.
- WWIO appealed, arguing (1) the court should have treated certified-mail service as complete under Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a) (i.e., not rebuttable) and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the magistrate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WWIO) | Defendant's Argument (Firouzmandi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified-mail service under Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a) is conclusive or gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of valid service | Service was complete when wife signed return receipt; actual notice is a separate Civ.R. 60(B) issue | A signed return receipt creates only a presumption that can be rebutted by evidence of non- delivery or non- receipt | Court held certified-mail service gives a rebuttable presumption of valid service (agreeing with Clapp and Gaston reasoning) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the magistrate and finding the presumption rebutted | Magistrate correctly found testimony did not rebut presumption; trial court should have deferred | Wife’s language limitations, mental-health/medication effects, past lost mail incidents, and subsequent repurchase of the property supported non- receipt | Court held trial court did not abuse its discretion: its de novo review of objections and credibility determinations reasonably supported rejecting the magistrate and vacating the default judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (1995) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (2010) (personal jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Castellano v. Kosydar, 42 Ohio St.2d 107 (1975) (certified delivery is effective for service under civil rules)
- Gaston v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, 133 Ohio St.3d 18 (2012) (certified-mail service creates a rebuttable presumption of valid service)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)