Background
Schwartz Boarding Farm sued Cavallo Stable and Cavallo’s owner, Aleksandra Karl, for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion arising from horse-boarding and training services. Schwartz alleged that payments stopped in May 2023 and that $31,593.24 remained due. Cavallo and Karl did not answer. Schwartz then requested a default judgment, asserting that it had reasonably attempted service and that the defendants had refused a certified mailing.
The proof attached to the default request consisted of a certified-mail item stamped “refused” and separate tracking information for a shipment to an Illinois address. The mailing itself did not display the recipient’s name or address; it showed only a QR code or similar code. The tracking printout contained no identifying information connecting it to that particular mailing. The Adams Circuit Court nevertheless entered default and, after a damages hearing the defendants did not attend, awarded $94,779.72 in treble damages plus attorney fees and costs.
Two months later, Cavallo and Karl sought relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6), which permits relief from a void judgment. Karl submitted an affidavit stating that neither she nor anyone authorized to accept service for Cavallo had received or refused certified mail during the relevant period, and that they first learned of the case after the judgment. The trial court denied relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed and held the default judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Mathias explained that personal jurisdiction is a constitutional prerequisite to a valid judgment and that effective service of process is necessary to bring a defendant within the court’s adjudicative power. Although rulings on Trial Rule 60(B) motions are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, the existence of personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Because the trial court had only a paper record, the appellate court also independently reviewed the jurisdictional facts.
Indiana Trial Rule 4.1 permits service on an individual by registered or certified mail sent to a residence, place of business, or employment, with a return receipt requested and returned showing receipt. Trial Rule 4.16 prevents a person who actually refuses tendered papers from later attacking that service. But the party invoking the court’s authority must present evidence establishing jurisdiction when it is challenged.
Schwartz’s documents did not meet that burden. An unidentified mailing marked “refused” could not establish who was served or where service was attempted. Nor did the separate tracking page solve the problem because it contained nothing tying the shipment history to the certified-mail item. Karl’s contrary affidavit remained unrebutted by competent identifying proof. The record therefore did not establish valid service on either Karl or Cavallo. Without service, the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction, and the resulting default and damages award were void rather than merely voidable.
Key Takeaways
- A “refused” notation does not prove service unless the record identifies the mailing, its intended recipient, and its destination.
- Separate postal documents must be linked by tracking or other identifying information; courts cannot infer that an anonymous envelope and shipment history belong together.
- A judgment entered without effective service is void for lack of personal jurisdiction and may be attacked under Trial Rule 60(B)(6).
Why It Matters
Indiana practitioners seeking default should preserve a complete, internally connected service record before requesting judgment. That means retaining the addressed mailing, tracking number, delivery or refusal history, and any return receipt in a form that lets the court match each document to the defendant. Counsel should review those exhibits for legibility and identifying details before filing the default motion. A large damages award cannot compensate for a jurisdictional gap, and a hearing on damages does not cure defective service.
For counsel moving to set aside default, the opinion distinguishes a discretionary request for leniency from a jurisdictional challenge. When service never occurred, the issue is not whether neglect was excusable; the court lacked power to enter judgment at all. Prompt affidavits addressing receipt, refusal, authorization, and when the defendant learned of the suit can sharpen that issue. The decision therefore supplies a focused evidentiary roadmap for both sides whenever certified-mail service is disputed.