Orlove v. Bringht

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals held that service of the money-damages claim was not perfected on the defendant under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Because service was not completed within the applicable time limits and the defendant preserved his insufficiency-of-service defense, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the claim. The appellate court vacated the judgment on Count 2 and remanded with instructions to dismiss that count without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Orlove did not perfect service of Count 2 on Bringht under Ohio Civ.R. 4, because service directed to or completed on Bringht's counsel was insufficient to serve Bringht personally.
2. Because service was not perfected within six months and Orlove did not show good cause, Count 2 was subject to dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 4(E); the action also was not commenced within one year as required by Civ.R. 3(A).
3. Bringht did not waive his insufficiency-of-service defense by appearing at the forcible-entry-and-detainer hearing or participating in the litigation because he properly raised and preserved the defense.
4. The judgment on Count 2 was void because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Bringht in the absence of perfected service.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Bringht's motion to quash service and motion to dismiss Count 2 when service was not perfected within the time required by Ohio Civ.R. 3(A) and 4(E).
2. Whether Bringht waived his insufficiency-of-service defense through his appearance at the forcible-entry-and-detainer hearing and subsequent participation in the litigation.
3. Whether the judgment on Count 2 was void because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Bringht.
4. Whether the assignments of error challenging the amount of damages and late fees were moot after the judgment was vacated.

Disposition

vacated