Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that serving a summons at a defendant's former residential address was insufficient because it was not reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the lawsuit, even though actual notice was eventually received. Applying due process standards to Civil Rule 4.1(A)(1)(a), the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant based on improper service.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether service of process to a defendant’s former residence satisfies Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a) and the due‑process requirement that service be reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the lawsuit.
Holdings
- Service to Alderman’s former residence was insufficient because it was not reasonably calculated to reach him; consequently the action was not timely commenced and the trial court’s summary‑judgment award was affirmed.
Key quotations
“Service to Alderman’s former residence was insufficient because it was not “reasonably calculated” to reach him.” (¶ 18)
“We therefore affirm the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals. Judgment affirmed.” (¶ 25)
Factual background
The Hunts served Alderman by certified mail to a former residential address in Cuyahoga Falls, a property they knew Alderman no longer occupied. The mail was signed for by a tenant, passed to Alderman’s father, and eventually reached Alderman weeks later. The service was therefore not directed to an address reasonably calculated to apprise Alderman of the lawsuit.
Procedural history
The trial court granted summary judgment to Alderman because service, although complying with Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a), was not reasonably calculated to give notice. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The Hunts appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.