Background
Cavalry SPV I, L.L.C. sued Robert J. Meier in 2020 to recover $3,287.86 on a delinquent credit-card account. The clerk sent the complaint by certified mail to Meier’s residential address, and the return receipt was signed and bore a printed name resembling “Robert Mere” or “Robert Were.” Meier did not answer, and the municipal court entered a default judgment.
After a 2025 garnishment attempt, Meier moved in January 2026 to vacate the judgment, quash service, stay garnishment, and dismiss the action. His motion alleged that he had not received the complaint and that the signature on the return receipt was not his. At the hearing, Meier testified that he lived at the service address with his then-wife when delivery occurred and that the receipt’s signature was not his. The trial court denied his motion without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Because certified mail was delivered to Meier’s undisputed residence and the return receipt was signed by a person accepting delivery, service was presumed valid under Ohio Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a). The signer did not have to be Meier or his authorized agent, and an illegible signature could still establish prima facie proper service. The record contained no evidence supporting Meier’s speculation that a postal employee had signed the receipt under a pandemic-era delivery practice.
The appellate court also upheld the implicit determination that Meier’s testimony and signature evidence did not rebut the presumption of service. The trial court heard Meier testify and could reject his denial that the signature was his as not credible. Separately, Meier could not obtain relief under Civ.R. 60(B) merely by asserting that he acted promptly after learning of the judgment; he did not argue that he had a meritorious defense or claim, one of the required elements for relief.
Key Takeaways
- A certified-mail return receipt signed by any person at the defendant’s address creates a rebuttable presumption of valid service under Ohio law.
- When a defendant contests receipt despite apparent compliance with the service rules, the trial court may hold a hearing and resolve the dispute through credibility findings.
- A Civ.R. 60(B) movant must establish every required element, including a meritorious defense or claim; prompt filing alone is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial evidentiary burden facing a defendant who seeks to undo a default judgment by denying that a certified-mail signature is his. When delivery occurred at the defendant’s admitted residence, appellate courts generally defer to the trial judge’s credibility assessment after an evidentiary hearing.
It also underscores that litigants seeking alternative relief under Civ.R. 60(B) must address all three GTE requirements. Even a timely motion fails if the movant does not identify a meritorious defense and a qualifying ground for relief.