Eastwind Surgical L.L.C. v. Fleming ( 2012 )

[Cite as Eastwind Surgical L.L.C. v. Fleming, 2012-Ohio-1352.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
EASTWIND SURGICAL LLC : William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Julie A. Edwards, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. CT2011-0053
:
:
HILDA FLEMING, et al., : OPINION
Defendants-Appellants
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas Case No.
CH2011-0269
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 26, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
W. RICHARD YOST BRIAN W. BENBOW
BRIAN S. STEWART Benbow Law Offices
Carlile Patchen & Murphy LLP 605 Market Street
366 East Broad Street Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Columbus, Ohio 43215
[Cite as Eastwind Surgical L.L.C. v. Fleming, 2012-Ohio-1352.]
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Appellants, Hilda and Russell Fleming, appeal a judgment of the
Muskingum County Common Pleas Court overruling their motion to vacate a default
judgment. Appellee is Eastwind Surgical, LLC.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On May 9, 2011, appellee filed the instant action against appellant for
money due for medical services rendered by appellee. The complaint was served by
certified mail, and the return receipt, filed with the court on May 11, shows that it was
signed for by “Russell Fleming” on May 10, 2011.
{¶3} Appellants failed to file an answer and on June 23, 2011, appellee moved
for default judgment in the amount of $45,305.00. The court entered default judgment
in the amount of $45,305.00 on June 28, 2011.
{¶4} Appellants filed a motion to vacate the default judgment on September 1,
2011. Appellants argued that the judgment was void because they were not properly
served. They argued that their 14-year-old son, Russell Fleming, Jr., signed for the
certified mail and pursuant to Civ. R. 4.2, he is incompetent to receive service because
he is under the age of sixteen. Attached to the motion was an affidavit of appellant
Hilda Fleming, verifying that her son signed for the certified mail when he was fourteen
years old. Appellee responded that appellants must produce testimony from Russell
Fleming, Jr. that he did in fact sign for the complaint. On September 20, 2011,
appellants filed a reply, attaching an affidavit of Russell Jr. that he did in fact sign for the
complaint, and an affidavit of Hilda Fleming stating that her son signed for the complaint
Muskingum County App. Case No. CT2011-0053 3
and did not forward it to her attention. The trial court summarily overruled the motion to
vacate on September 21, 2011.
{¶5} Appellants filed a notice of appeal on October 19, 2011, and also filed a
Civ. R. 60(B) motion in the trial court on the same day, again alleging improper service
and arguing that they have a meritorious defense to the action in that they were not
given credit for payments they forwarded to appellee. The trial court stayed the action
pending resolution of the appeal from the September 21, 2011 judgment. Appellants
assign one error:
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT
DENIED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE JUNE 28, 2011 JUDGMENT, AS
THE JUDGMENT WAS VOID AB INITIO DUE TO LACK OF PROPER SERVICE
UNDER CIV. R. 4.2(A).”
{¶7} Proper service of process is an essential component in the acquisition of
personal jurisdiction over a party. State ex rel. Strothers v. Madden (Oct. 22, 1998),
Cuyahoga App. No. 74547, 1998 WL 741909, citing Holm v. Smilowitz (1992), 83 Ohio
App.3d 757, 615 N.E.2d 1047. There is a presumption of proper service when the civil
rules governing service are followed, but this presumption is rebuttable by sufficient
evidence. Id., citing In re Estate of Popp (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 640, 641 N.E.2d 739. If
service of process has not been accomplished, or otherwise waived, any judgment
rendered is void ab initio. Westmoreland v. Valley Homes Mutual Housing Corp. (1975),
42 Ohio St.2d 291, 293-294, 328 N.E.2d 406.
{¶8} Service by certified mail is perfected when it is sent to an address
“reasonably calculated to cause service to reach the defendant.” Ohio Civ. Rights
Muskingum County App. Case No. CT2011-0053 4
Comm. v. First Am. Properties (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 233, 237, 680 N.E.2d 725,
citing Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 403, 406 N.E.2d 811. It
is presumed that valid service of process has been made when the envelope is received
by any person at the defendant's address. Id. Pursuant to Civ. R. 4.2(A), service of
process is made by serving an individual other than a person under the age of sixteen
or an incompetent person. G.F.S. Leasing & Management Inc. v. Mack (June 27,
2000), Stark App. Nos. 1999CA00391, 1999CA00390, unreported.
{¶9} Civ. R. 4.1 is entitled “Process: methods of service.” Civ. R. 4.1(A)
expressly provides that service by certified mail shall be evidenced by return receipt
signed by any person.
{¶10} Civ. R. 4.2 is entitled “Process: who may be served.” Appellants argue
that Civ. R. 4.2 limits “any person” to persons sixteen or older. Civ. R. 4.2(A) and (B)
provide:
{¶11} “Service of process, except service by publication as provided in Civ.R.
4.4(A), pursuant to Civ.R. 4 through 4.6 shall be made as follows:
{¶12} “(A) Upon an individual, other than a person under sixteen years of age or
an incompetent person, by serving the individual;
{¶13} “(B) Upon a person under sixteen years of age by serving either the
person's guardian or any one of the following persons with whom the person to be
served lives or resides: father, mother, or the individual having the care of the person; or
by serving the person if the person neither has a guardian nor lives or resides with a
parent or a person having his or her care;”
Muskingum County App. Case No. CT2011-0053 5
{¶14} Contra to appellants’ argument, we do not find that Civ. R. 4.2 makes
service on an adult party to the action ineffective if signed for by a person under the age
of sixteen. Rather, Civ. R. 4.2 requires service on a parent or guardian when the
person named in the lawsuit was under the age of sixteen. Civ. R. 4.1 specifically
allows service by certified mail to be signed for by any person. Thus, in the instant
case, service was not ineffective simply because the certified mail receipt was signed by
appellants’ fourteen-year-old son.
{¶15} The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Edwards, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/r0105
[Cite as Eastwind Surgical L.L.C. v. Fleming, 2012-Ohio-1352.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
EASTWIND SURGICAL LLC :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
HILDA FLEMING, et al., :
:
Defendants-Appellants : CASE NO. CT2011-0053
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs
assessed to appellants.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES