Background
Heather Keen filed for divorce in August 2023 while her husband, Nathen Keen, was incarcerated. A certified-mail return receipt addressed to Keen at Belmont Correctional Institution was signed in August 2023 and filed in the record. Keen did not answer, appear, request to attend the proceedings, or timely appeal. The domestic relations court entered a divorce decree awarding Heather the marital residence and designating her as the children’s residential parent and legal custodian.
Keen’s first motion for relief from judgment under Ohio Civil Rule 60(B) challenged the decree’s property and parental-rights provisions and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied that motion, and the Fifth District affirmed. In March 2026, Keen filed a second Rule 60(B) motion, this time asserting that he had never been served and that the trial court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the motion, found that service had been completed, and concluded that Keen had waived any personal-jurisdiction objection by failing to raise it earlier.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that the certified-mail return receipt established service at the prison even though a docket notation incorrectly stated “SERVICE INCOMPLETE.” Because certified delivery to an incarcerated person may be accepted by prison personnel, Keen’s assertion that he personally had not signed the receipt did not rebut the presumption of proper service.
The court also agreed that Keen waived any personal-jurisdiction defense by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity. He had participated in post-decree proceedings, filed an earlier Rule 60(B) motion, and acknowledged knowing about the divorce complaint and final hearing without contesting service. His second motion was additionally untimely because he waited more than two years after the decree despite knowing of the asserted issues and offered no explanation for the delay.
No evidentiary hearing was required because Keen’s affidavit merely repeated legal arguments and did not allege operative facts supporting a meritorious defense or entitlement to Rule 60(B) relief. The trial court also properly treated his visitation-related motion as moot because it was expressly premised on reopening the divorce judgment, and no new hearing was granted.
Key Takeaways
- Certified-mail service on an incarcerated litigant may be completed when prison personnel sign for delivery; the prisoner need not personally sign the receipt.
- A personal-jurisdiction objection based on defective service may be waived when the litigant participates in proceedings and fails to raise the objection at the earliest opportunity.
- A Rule 60(B) movant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on bare legal assertions unsupported by operative facts that could warrant relief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Rule 60(B) cannot be used repeatedly as a substitute for a timely direct appeal. A litigant seeking to reopen a judgment must act within a reasonable time, identify a qualifying ground for relief, and allege concrete facts supporting a meritorious claim or defense.
For incarcerated parties, the opinion also confirms that certified-mail delivery through institutional personnel can establish valid service under Ohio’s civil rules, while later participation without a prompt jurisdictional objection can independently waive a service challenge.