Tadross v. Tadross
2017 Ohio 930
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- George Tadross filed for divorce after his wife Maryan and their two minor children traveled to Egypt and Maryan refused to return; Maryan remained in Egypt and did not appear for trial.
- The trial court granted the divorce, divided marital property, named George residential parent and legal custodian, and ordered Maryan to pay George’s attorney fees.
- Maryan appealed, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction because she was not properly served in Egypt.
- The trial court concluded Maryan was not a foreign defendant for Hague Convention service rules and alternatively found service by a court-appointed courier in Egypt sufficient.
- The appellate court reviewed whether service complied with Ohio Civ.R. 4 rules and the Hague Convention and whether Maryan waived defects by participating in the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action commenced under Civ.R. 3(A) given service in a foreign country | Service was properly effected so the action commenced and divorce decree is valid | Service in Egypt was improper, so the action never commenced | Action did not commence because service in Egypt was invalid; decree voided |
| Whether the Hague Convention/Civ.R. 4.5 applied to service on Maryan in Egypt | Maryan was not a "foreign defendant" (dual citizen) so Hague protocol did not apply | Egypt is a Hague signatory with objections; service must follow the Convention/Civ.R. 4.5 | Civ.R. 4.5 and the Hague Convention applied regardless of nationality; state rule cannot conflict with treaty |
| Whether service by courier/ special process server in Egypt satisfied required method | A court-appointed courier effectuated valid service in Egypt | Egypt objects to Article 10; service must go through central authority, making courier service invalid | Service via courier in Egypt was invalid because Egypt requires central-authority transmission under the Convention |
| Whether Maryan waived insufficiency of service by participating in litigation | Participation/acknowledgment constituted waiver of service defects | Maryan timely raised insufficiency in her answer and motion to dismiss; participation does not waive preserved defense | No waiver: insufficiency of service was timely raised and preserved; active participation does not forfeit the defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Saunders v. Choi, 12 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1984) (action not commenced if service not obtained within one year of filing)
- Kossuth v. Bear, 161 Ohio St. 378 (Ohio 1954) (failure of commencement means no case comes into existence)
- Miss. Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1945) (service of summons asserts court's jurisdiction over a person)
- Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 66 Ohio St.2d 290 (Ohio 1981) (service must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action)
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1988) (treaties like the Hague Convention preempt inconsistent state service methods)
- Gliozzo v. Univ. Urologists of Cleveland, Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 141 (Ohio 2007) (preserved insufficiency-of-service defense not waived by active participation)
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1984) (standards for motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or service)