2018 Ohio 2444
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Runyon sued Hawley and Hawley Motors, LLC for unpaid auto repair, obtained default judgment after service by certified mail (returned unclaimed) then ordinary mail (not returned) to the statutory-agent/address listed with the Secretary of State.
- Runyon recorded a judgment lien and transferred title to a Lincoln to his name.
- Six months later Hawley and Hawley Motors moved to vacate under Civ.R. 60(B), asserting they never received proper service and alleging fraud; they submitted an affidavit that Hawley resided in Kentucky during the service period and the statutory agent was not in Ohio.
- The trial court granted the motion to vacate on the ground of improper service (lack of personal jurisdiction) without holding an evidentiary hearing.
- Runyon appealed, arguing (1) service was proper and presumption of service was unrebutted, (2) the court should have held a hearing, and (3) the court erred in relying on allegations of fraud; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Runyon) | Defendant's Argument (Hawley / Hawley Motors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service by certified (returned unclaimed) then ordinary mail to statutory-agent address created an unrebuttable presumption of proper service | Service followed Civ.R. 4.1/4.6; presumption of proper service rises and defendants failed to rebut it | Defendants presented uncontradicted affidavit that Hawley resided in Kentucky during service and statutory agent did not maintain an Ohio address, so service was not reasonably calculated to notify them | Court held the affidavit rebutted the presumption; service was improper and court lacked personal jurisdiction; judgment vacated |
| Whether the court abused discretion by ruling without an evidentiary hearing | Runyon: a hearing was required to cross-examine defendants’ self‑serving affidavit | Defendants: filed sworn affidavit; no hearing necessary; Runyon opposed a hearing and declined to seek cross-examination | Court held no abuse: plaintiff declined/requested no hearing; invited-error and discretion principles support ruling without hearing |
| Whether the court improperly relied on fraud grounds under Civ.R. 60(B) | Runyon: defendants failed to prove fraud and misapplied Civ.R. 60(B) subsections | Defendants raised fraud but primary ground at trial court was lack of proper service; trial court did not base ruling on fraud | Court found argument not preserved and trial court did not rely on fraud; issue moot as judgment rested on service |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert, 33 Ohio App.3d 274 (Ohio Ct. App.) (proper service required for valid default judgment)
- Rafalski v. Oates, 17 Ohio App.3d 65 (Ohio Ct. App.) (uncontradicted affidavit that defendant did not receive service rebuts presumption)
- Akron-Canton Reg'l Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403 (Ohio 1980) (service must satisfy due process—reasonably calculated to notify)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due-process standard for notice)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1988) (authority to vacate void judgments derives from courts’ inherent power, not Civ.R. 60(B))
- Sampson v. Hooper Holmes, Inc., 91 Ohio App.3d 538 (Ohio Ct. App.) (judgment rendered without accomplished service is void ab initio)