CUC Properties VI, L.L.C. v. Smartlink Ventures, Inc.CUC Properties VI, L.L.C. v. Smartlink Ventures, Inc.
OPINION.
Finney Law Firm, Chris Finney and Julie Gugino for
BERGERON, Judge.
{1} Neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night can stop our trusted mail carriers from completing their rоunds. Unfortunately, however, Covid-19 prevented them from getting close enough during those deliveries to obtain signatures on certified mail. When plaintiff-appellee CUC Properties attempted to serve defendant-appellant Smartlink Ventures with a summons and complaint via certified mail during the рandemic, the mail carrier failed to obtain a signature from the recipient. Instead, the postal employee jotted down “Covid 19” and “C19” on the return receipt. At issue is whether such a notation constitutes a valid signature to effectuate certified mail service under
I.
{2} The relevant facts in this case are straightforward and largely undisputed. Smartlink leased office space from CUC Properties, but vacated the property during the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. With no rent checks coming in, CUC sued Smartlink, electing to have the clerk of courts serve the summons and complaint via certified mail consistent with
{3} To reduce health risks during the pandemic, the postal service modified mail procedures for services that normally required carriers to venture in close proximity to customers. United States Postal Service, Cоvid-19 Continuity of Operations Update (Mar. 20, 2021), https://about.usps.com/newsroom/service-alerts/pdf/usps-continuity-of-operations-03-20-2020.pdf (accessed Sep. 16, 2021). In lieu of face-to-face signatures, USPS instructed its carriers to maintain a safe distance, ask the recipient for their first initial and last name, enter that information on the return receipt, and then have the customer step back while the employee placed the mail in an appropriate place. CUC alleges the postal employee followed this practice at Smartlink‘s principal plаce of business by signing the receipt “C19” and “Covid 19.”
{4} Smartlink did not respond to the lawsuit until a few months later—the very day that the trial court granted a default judgment in CUC‘s favor. Smartlink now appeals that default judgment with a single assignment of error, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment due to imprоper service.
II.
{5} This case requires us to tour several foundational principles of civil procedure. “Under
{6} Moreover, service of process in Ohio cannot be proper unless it complies with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure (along with due process concerns). “When service is not properly made under
{7} The issue before this court is a narrow one: does a mail carrier‘s “Covid 19” or “C19” mark on the certified mail receipt constitute a valid signature under
{8} ”
{9} The “any person” language in
{10} That said, whether Ohio law is broad enough to allow a mail carrier to notate in a manner that provides no indication of who (if аnyone) received the delivery is another matter. CUC maintains that USPS delivery persons were authorized during the pandemic to sign on behalf of the recipient with the “Covid 19” or “C19” notation. Yet CUC points to nothing in
{11} Although not binding, we are mindful that federal authority appeаrs consistent with our interpretation of Rule 4‘s signature requirement. In Finnell v. Eppens, the district court disagreed with the magistrate‘s determination that “Covid 19”
{12} Nor can CUC look to the USPS decree in order to salvage service here. Compliance with USPS instructions called for the mail carrier to write the recipient‘s first initial and last name on the receipt. CUC insists the mail carrier followed USPS procedures becausе the return receipt “notes the initials of the individual that received delivery.” But this is inaccurate because the only notations appearing on the return receipts were “Covid 19” and “C19” (both referencing the pandemic, rather than a person), and the cryptic reference “Rt 12“—which might rеference a carrier‘s route but not anyone‘s name. We are not faced with a circumstance where the postal employee adhered to USPS instructions, and thus we have no occasion to consider how such facts might impact our analysis. In this scenario, the return receipt lacked the requisite first initial and last name dictated by the USPS internal memorandum. As a result, that guidance has no bearing on our analysis.
{13} Nonetheless, CUC insists that administrative action taken by the Ohio Supreme Court validated the service at issue here. Specifically, CUC claims the administrative action gave lower courts, including the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, the power to waive any rule requiring in-person service of process. See In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447, 1448, 2020-Ohio-1166, 141 N.E.3d 974 (“Any requirement in a rule of the Court that a party appear in person or requiring in-person service may be waived by the Court, local court, hearing panel, board, or commission, as applicable.“). Based on that order, some courts in the state promulgated a variety of rules to accommodate alternative certified mail signatures. The Cuyаhoga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, for instance, decreed that the “delivery shall be
{14} But we have no occasion to address these scenarios either because Hamilton County issued no such order. While the Ohio Supreme Court granted power to local courts to waive the in-person service of process, nothing in the record suggests the trial court exercised that power or even analyzed whether service was proper in light of USPS changes or the Supreme Court‘s administrative action. Despite CUC‘s contention otherwise, the trial court‘s granting of a default judgment cannot be read as a waiver of the in-person service of process.1
{15} The Covid-19 pandemic certainly demanded innovation and flexibility, and courts around the state (and country) admirably exhibited great creativity in keeping the courthouse doors open while also ensuring public safety. The challenging nature of the pandemic aside, we cannot simply dispense with the rules and due process protections. This is particularly so when the record contains no indication that service was otherwise validly achieved. On this record, therefore, we hold that a notаtion of “Covid 19” or “C19” does not constitute a valid signature under
*
*
*
{16} In light of the foregoing analysis, we sustain Smartlink‘s assignment of error. The judgment of the trial court granting CUC‘s motion for default judgment is reversed, the default judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment accordingly.
ZAYAS, P. J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion