DocketNumber: C.A. No. 23184.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 4472
Judges: CARLA MOORE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/30/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 3} On October 25, 2005, Appellee filed her motion for default judgment. The trial court granted Appellee's motion on October 31, 2005, finding that Appellant had failed to appear or otherwise defend. The court scheduled a hearing on damages for November 17, 2005. At the hearing, judgment was awarded in favor of Appellee and against Appellant in the amount of $12,266.00. The Notice of the Magistrate's Decision awarding the default judgment was mailed via regular mail service to Appellant on December 5, 2005 at the same address at which service had been perfected on September 21, 2005. This notice was returned for insufficient address. Notice of the final appealable order granting the default judgment was issued to Appellant on January 5, 2006 to this same address. This notice was claimed by Appellant on January 5, 2006.
{¶ 4} On February 3, 2006, Appellee filed a supplemental complaint. On March 2, 2006, Appellant filed a motion to vacate default judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60. On March 14, 2006, the trial court denied the motion to vacate. Appellant timely appealed from this order, raising one assignment of error for our review.
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate default judgment. We disagree.
{¶ 6} In order to prevail on a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate: (1) a meritorious claim or defense; (2) entitlement to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) timeliness of the motion. GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v.ARC Industries, Inc. (1976),
{¶ 7} The question of whether relief should be granted is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Griffey v.Rajan (1987),
{¶ 8} Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate because he has a meritorious defense to present if relief is granted.1 Appellant's defense is that proper service was never obtained on him and as such, the trial court never obtained proper jurisdiction over him. In support, Appellant's counsel asserts that he believes Appellant Sprague currently resides outside of Ohio. Appellant contends that a review of the docket and history of attempts at service reflects the confusion regarding service.
{¶ 9} Upon review of the docket, we see no confusion regarding the service issue. The complaint was initially sent by certified mail to the address Appellant provided at the accident scene. The certified mail service was returned to the clerk and marked unclaimed. Civ.R. 4.6(D) provides the procedure for obtaining service upon a defendant when certified mail is unclaimed. Pursuant to this rule:
"If a certified or express mail envelope is returned with an endorsement showing that the envelope was unclaimed, the clerk shall forthwith notify, by mail, the attorney of record or, if there is no attorney of record, the party at whose instance process was issued. If the attorney, or serving party, after notification by the clerk, files with the clerk a written request for ordinary mail service, the clerk shall send by ordinary mail a copy of the summons and complaint or other document to be served to the defendant at the address set forth in the caption, or at the address set forth in written instructions furnished to the clerk. The mailing shall be evidenced by a certificate of mailing which shall be completed and filed by the clerk. Answer day shall be twenty-eight days after the date of mailing as evidenced by the certificate of mailing. The clerk shall endorse this answer date upon the summons which is sent by ordinary mail. Service shall be deemed complete when the fact of mailing is entered of record, provided that the ordinary mail envelope is not returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement showing failure of delivery. If the ordinary mail envelope is returned undelivered, the clerk shall forthwith notify the attorney, or serving party, by mail."
The docket reflects that on September 21, 2005, regular mail service was issued to Appellant in response to the unclaimed certified mail service. Further, the docket reflects that service was "deemed complete" because "the ordinary mail envelope [was] not returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement showing failure of delivery." See Civ.R. 4.6(D).
{¶ 10} "[T]here is a presumption of proper service in cases where the Civil Rules on service are followed. However, this presumption is rebuttable by sufficient evidence." Jacobs v.Szakal, 9th Dist. No. 22903,
{¶ 11} In the within matter, Appellant has presented no evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service. SeeJacobs, supra, at ¶ 14. Appellant contends that the summons sent by certified mail was returned unclaimed and that the December 5, 2005 notice that was sent by regular mail came back as "insufficient address." Neither of these assertions refute the presumption of proper service that arose after Appellee followed the procedure outlined in Civ.R. 4.6(D). Appellant has presented no affidavit, deposition testimony, stipulations or other evidence that would demonstrate that service was improper. SeeRafalski,
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Appellant has failed to set forth a meritorious defense as required in GTE,
47 Ohio St.2d at paragraph two of the syllabus. Therefore, we need not address his remaining arguments. See Strack,
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Slaby, P.J. Whitmore, J. Concur.