2023 Ohio 3601
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- RDR owned a condemned building at 1119 Bryson St.; the City demolished the structure on October 30, 2019 and sought $59,500 in demolition costs under a Youngstown ordinance.
- The City attempted pre‑suit contact at RDR’s statutory agent address listed with the Ohio Secretary of State, but mail was returned as undeliverable/vacant.
- The City sent a demand letter to RDR’s only commercial property on South Avenue; USPS successfully delivered and returned a signed receipt.
- The City filed suit (May 25, 2022) and directed clerk to mail service to the South Avenue address; the returned postal receipt (signed “RDR”) was accepted and the court entered default judgment when RDR did not respond.
- RDR moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction because service was improper (ownership of the building ≠ a usual place of business; no authorized agent accepted service). The trial court denied the motion; RDR appealed.
- The appellate court held the City was entitled to a presumption of proper service from the signed return receipt, RDR failed to rebut that presumption, and the denial of the motion to vacate was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | City (Plaintiff) Argument | RDR (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified‑mail service to RDR’s South Avenue property was proper and conferred personal jurisdiction | Service was sent to one of RDR’s usual places of business (its only commercial address); USPS returned a signed receipt reading “RDR,” creating a presumption of proper service | Ownership of the South Avenue building alone does not make it a usual place of business; the return receipt does not prove an authorized agent received service; City should have served the statutory agent | Service was proper; the signed receipt created a rebuttable presumption of delivery to a usual place of business, City’s prior efforts to statutory‑agent address failed, and RDR offered no evidence to rebut the presumption — judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (standard for reviewing personal‑jurisdiction rulings)
- Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 66 Ohio St.2d 290 (return receipt evidences effective service even if not delivered to defendant)
- Tripodi v. Liquor Control Comm., 21 Ohio App.2d 110 (signed registered‑mail receipt establishes prima facie delivery)
- Blon v. Royal Flush, Inc., 191 N.E.3d 505 (defendant can rebut presumption by showing it no longer conducted business at the address)
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (personal jurisdiction prerequisites; service, appearance, or waiver)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio courts’ inherent power to vacate judgments entered without personal jurisdiction)
- Lincoln Tavern, Inc. v. Snader, 165 Ohio St. 61 (judgments entered without proper service are void)