Romp v. Jean-Pierre
2016 Ohio 5072
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tenant-appellant Claude Jean‑Pierre signed a lease for a Toledo duplex but allegedly did not occupy the premises and lived in Solon, Ohio.
- Landlords Jeffrey and Chris Romp posted a statutory three‑day “Notice to Leave Premises” (June 22, 2014), then filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) complaint (July 1, 2014) seeking restitution and monetary damages.
- Service was effected by ordinary mail to the rental address (July 3, 2014) and by posting at the premises (July 7, 2014), in accordance with the Toledo Municipal Court local rule mirroring R.C. 1923.06.
- Municipal Court entered default judgment for landlords (December 5, 2014); Jean‑Pierre learned of the judgment when wages were garnished weeks later.
- Jean‑Pierre moved to vacate under Civ.R. 60(B), supported by an affidavit denying he received notice or lived at the rental address; the trial court denied the motion without comment.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding service did not afford due process under the uncontested facts and remanded for proper service under the local rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Romp) | Defendant's Argument (Jean‑Pierre) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the default judgment void for lack of service/notice? | Service by ordinary mail and posting at the leased premises complied with Loc.R. 35(A)/R.C.1923.06 and thus was sufficient. | Jean‑Pierre asserted he did not live at the premises, did not receive mailed papers, and therefore did not get notice. | Held: Judgment void as to Jean‑Pierre — uncontested affidavit rebutted presumption of proper service; due process not satisfied. |
| Did Jean‑Pierre need to meet Civ.R. 60(B) requirements to challenge the judgment? | (Implicit) Trial court applied Civ.R. 60(B) process. | Jean‑Pierre argued judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction, so common‑law vacatur is available without Civ.R. 60(B) showing. | Held: A void judgment from defective service is subject to inherent/common‑law vacatur; Civ.R. 60(B) requirements are not a prerequisite. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required before ruling on the motion to vacate? | No explicit argument recorded by Romp beyond contesting service. | Jean‑Pierre argued the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing on his sworn denial of receipt. | Held: Moot — appellate court reversed on the papers because affidavit was uncontroverted; did not reach the hearing issue. |
| Does the use of R.C.1923.06/Loc.R. 35(A) procedures preclude later attack on service? | Procedures are constitutional and generally sufficient when reasonably calculated to give notice. | Even compliance with those procedures may fail due process if they do not actually notify the defendant. | Held: Compliance alone does not immunize service; if procedures did not actually provide notice, service may be successfully challenged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lincoln Tavern, Inc. v. Snader, 165 Ohio St. 61, 133 N.E.2d 606 (1956) (judgment based on faulty service is void)
- Westmoreland v. Valley Homes Mut. Hous. Corp., 42 Ohio St.2d 291, 328 N.E.2d 406 (1975) (courts have inherent authority to vacate void judgments)
- State ex rel. Ballard v. O'Donnell, 50 Ohio St.3d 182, 553 N.E.2d 650 (1990) (challenge to personal jurisdiction from defective service need not satisfy Civ.R. 60(B))
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Regional Airport Authority v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403, 406 N.E.2d 811 (1980) (service must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties and permit response)
- Seventh Urban, Inc. v. Univ. Circle, 67 Ohio St.2d 19, 423 N.E.2d 1070 (1981) (FED actions decide immediate possession only)