Hoffman v. New Life Fitness Centers, Inc.Hoffman v. New Life Fitness Centers, Inc.
New Life Fitness Centers, Inc., appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County denying the appellant’s
On May 7, 1993, plaintiffs-appellees, Regina and Joseph Hoffman, filed this action agаinst the appellant alleging that Regina had contracted herpes simplex Type II while using a tanning bed at its Findlay, Ohio facility in June 1992. The record indicates that the attempt at service by certified mail to appellant’s main office in Dayton, Ohio was returned “refused.” On June 2, 1993, a copy of the summons and complaint was then sent by ordinary mail, which was not returned. The appellant filed no response to the cоmplaint.
On July 16, 1993, appellees moved for a default judgment against appellant. Notice of the motion for default and following hearing was sent by ordinary mail to appellant at the Dayton address. This notiсe was returned marked “moved, left no address — unable to forward.” On August 17, 1993, appellees obtained a default judgment against appellant.
After notice of a hearing to determine damages was issued by publication, the damages hearing was held and in its October 8, 1993 entry, the trial court awarded appelleеs $200,000 plus interest at the rate of ten percent from September 30,1993.
On December 23, 1993, appellant moved the trial court for relief from the default judgment pursuant to
Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s decision and raises the following two assignments of error:
“The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside a default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(B).
“The trial court failed to grant an evidentiary hearing оn theCiv.R. 60(B) motion.”
In its first assignment of error, appellant raises an issue as to whether service of notice was аccomplished when appellant claims its corporate existence ceased bеfore the complaint was filed.
If the appellant was not properly served notice of the complaint against it, then the default judgment rendered is void, and it is not necessary for this court to determine whether appellant meets the requirements for relief from judgment set forth in
In addition, our review of the record reveals that appellant’s sunbed insurance carrier, Century Surety Company, submitted a certified copy of the pоlicy of insurance with its intervenor’s complaint, which indicates that the named insured
As noted earlier, the original service by certified mail was to appellant’s Dayton address in May 1993 and was returned “refused.” This was followed by ordinary mаil service to the same address on June 2,1993. Subsequently, the notice of the motion for default and hearing wаs also sent by ordinary mail to appellant in July 1993 at the Dayton address and was returned marked “moved, left no address— unable to forward.”
Given this chronology of events, we believe that the record in this case indiсates that there was sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of propеr service created by appellees’ compliance with
To this extent only, appellant’s assignments of error are well taken, the trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s motion is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.