Mun. Tax Invest., L.L.C v. Pate
2016 Ohio 7791
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Municipal Tax Investment, LLC (plaintiff) filed a tax-certificate foreclosure against property owned by Patricia Tripodi-Wademi (appellant, trustee) and Pamela Pate.
- Initial certified-mail service to the property address was signed for by appellant’s mother; plaintiff later attempted certified service to appellant’s North Carolina address, which was returned unclaimed.
- Plaintiff then sent the summons by ordinary mail to the North Carolina address; that mail was not returned as undeliverable.
- Trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment and entered a decree of foreclosure.
- Appellant filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate (arguing lack of proper service, meritorious defenses including improper certificate purchases, and excusable neglect); the trial court denied relief and appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was service of process sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction? | Service by ordinary mail to NC address perfected service after certified mail was returned unclaimed; jurisdiction existed. | Certified service at the property was invalid; appellant was not properly served and therefore court lacked personal jurisdiction. | Service was proper under Civ.R. 4.1/4.3/4.6 because certified mail was unclaimed and subsequent ordinary mail was not returned; personal jurisdiction exists. |
| Did appellant waive any service defect by participating in mediation? | Not necessary to establish waiver because proper service occurred; waiver issue moot. | Participation in mediation and filing papers did not waive the service defect claim. | Court found service sufficient and therefore did not reach or need to rely on waiver. |
| Did appellant establish a meritorious defense to justify Civ.R. 60(B) relief? | Appellant argued plaintiff illegally purchased two tax certificates before registering as a foreign LLC, making enforcement improper. | Plaintiff argued registration was in place when enforcement action was filed and R.C. 1705.58 does not bar enforcement. | Appellant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense; failure to register does not invalidate the company’s acts or bar defense and plaintiff was registered when action was brought. |
| Did trial court abuse discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief? | Trial court properly applied GTE factors and found no meritorious defense or excusable neglect. | Appellant contended excusable neglect and merits existed based on service and certificate issues. | No abuse of discretion; GTE test not satisfied (meritorious-defense prong failed), so denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, Inc., 53 Ohio St.3d 73 (1990) (out-of-state service rules and jurisdiction)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (failure to satisfy any GTE prong bars relief)
- J. R. Prods., Inc. v. Young, 3 Ohio App.3d 407 (10th Dist. 1982) (when certified mail is unclaimed, ordinary mail service may be used)