Summary
The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a father’s motion to vacate default judgments establishing paternity and child support. The court held that service by ordinary mail was deemed complete under Ohio Civ.R. 4.6(D) after certified mail was returned unclaimed, and that the father failed to rebut the presumption of proper service with evidentiary-quality information. Because no sworn affidavit or other sufficient evidence demonstrated nonservice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Holdings
- When certified-mail service is returned marked unclaimed, Ohio Civ.R. 4.6(D) permits service by ordinary mail, and service is deemed complete when the ordinary-mail envelope is not returned marked failure of delivery.
- A defendant challenging service must produce evidentiary-quality information demonstrating nonservice; appellant failed to rebut the presumption because he provided no affidavit and his unauthenticated documents did not establish that he did not live at the service address during the relevant period.
- The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to vacate without a hearing because appellant did not present allegations supported by evidentiary-quality information that would warrant relief.
- The default judgments were not void for lack of personal jurisdiction because appellant was properly served under the civil rules and did not appear before judgment was entered.
Questions Presented
- Whether ordinary-mail service was complete under Ohio Civ.R. 4.6(D) when certified-mail service was returned unclaimed and the ordinary-mail envelope was not returned marked failure of delivery.
- Whether appellant rebutted the presumption of proper service with evidentiary-quality information demonstrating nonservice.
- Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the motion to vacate without an evidentiary hearing.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (19)
- Mayfran Internatl., Inc. v. Eco-Modity, L.L.C., 2019-Ohio-4350, 135 N.E.3d 792, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.)(followed)
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St. 3d 154, 156, 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984)(followed)
- GGNSC Lima, L.L.C. v. LMOP, L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105910, 2018-Ohio-1298, ¶ 14(followed)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St. 3d 68, 518 N.E.2d 941 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus(followed)
- Green v. Huntley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-652, 2010-Ohio-1024, ¶ 11(followed)
- Stonehenge Condominium Assn. v. Davis, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-1103, 2005-Ohio-4637, ¶ 13(followed)
- State ex rel. Ballard v. O’Donnell, 50 Ohio St. 3d 182, 553 N.E.2d 650 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus(followed)
- Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St. 2d 403, 406, 406 N.E.2d 811 (1980)(followed)
- Lakhodar v. Madani, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91564, 2008-Ohio-6502, ¶ 12(followed)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Emge, 124 Ohio App. 3d 61, 63, 705 N.E.2d 408 (1st Dist. 1997)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.