Ibrahim v. Bailfish Servs., L.L.C.

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas' denial of Bailfish Services, LLC and Kenneth C. Fisher's motions for relief from a default judgment and to vacate a show-cause hearing. The court held that appellants failed to rebut the presumption of proper service, did not establish grounds for relief under Ohio Civ.R. 60(B), and that their challenge to the judgment-debtor examination was moot.

Holdings

1. Appellants did not rebut the presumption of proper service because their evidence showed only that Fisher did not recall receiving service and could not locate the documents, rather than affirmatively stating that service was never made. The personal process server's returns therefore supported proper service, and the default judgment was not void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief. Financial distress, insolvency, downsizing, and litigation overload did not constitute excusable neglect, and appellants identified no extraordinary or unusual circumstance warranting relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Because appellants failed to establish entitlement to relief under a qualifying Civ.R. 60(B) ground, the trial court was not required to address their asserted meritorious defenses.
3. The third assignment of error was moot because the trial court granted Ibrahim's motion to withdraw and vacate the judgment-debtor examination after the notice of appeal, leaving no live controversy concerning the July 10, 2025 order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because appellants allegedly were not properly served.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellants' Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion based on alleged excusable neglect, financial distress, insolvency, litigation overload, and asserted defenses.
3. Whether the appeal concerning service of the judgment-debtor examination order and the show-cause hearing remained justiciable after the trial court vacated the examination.

Disposition

affirmed