defendant rebuts presumption in Ohio

2025See Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Meyers, 2006-Ohio-5380, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.) (“In those instances where the plaintiff follows the Civil Rules governing service of process, courts presume that service is proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of non-service.”). {¶ 10} To challenge the presumption that she was served, Baldwin has attached -4- to her appellate brief a document which is purportedly a “new service order issued by the City of Troy Water department.” This document, she claims, proves that she was not a resident of the address that was served.

2025And when the plaintiff follows the civil rules, “courts presume that service is proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.” Id., citing Hook v. Collins, 2017-Ohio-976 , ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), citing Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Meyers, 2006-Ohio-5380, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.).

2025Restoration of ShiftMed’s original burden to demonstrate proper service If a defendant rebuts the presumption, “‘it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce evidence demonstrating that defendant resided at the address in question.’” Hook at ¶ 15 , quoting Watts v. Brown, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 15311 , *14-15 (8th Dist.); accord Tomcho v. ATL, Inc., 2018-Ohio-4613 , ¶ 20 (8th Dist.); Cherrier, 2020-Ohio-3280, at ¶12 (8th Dist.).

2023Cuyahoga No. 108595, 2020-Ohio-3280, ¶ 12 (“Where the plaintiff follows the civil rules governing service of process, courts presume that service is proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.”). “‘In order to rebut the presumption of proper service, the other party must produce evidentiary-quality information demonstrating that he or she did not receive service.’” In re K.J. at ¶ 17, quoting Hook v. Collins, 8th Dist.

2025“Where the plaintiff follows the civil rules governing service of process, courts presume that service is proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.” In re K.J., 2023-Ohio-615, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing Hook v. Collins, 2017-Ohio-976 , ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).

2023Cuyahoga No. 111824, 2023-Ohio-615, ¶ 17 (“Where the plaintiff follows the civil rules governing service of process, courts presume that service is proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.”); Kassouf v. Barylak, 8th Dist.

2014CompuServe, Inc. v. Trionfo, 91 Ohio App.3d 157 , 631 N.E.2d 1120 (10th Dist. 1993). {¶12} “Courts will presume service to be proper in cases where the civil rules are followed unless the defendant rebuts the presumption by sufficient evidence.” In re Estate of Popp, 94 Ohio App.3d 640 , 641 N.E.2d 739 (8th Dist. 1994).

2014CompuServe, Inc. v. Trionfo, 91 Ohio App.3d 157 , 631 N.E.2d 1120 (10th Dist. 1993). {¶12} “Courts will presume service to be proper in cases where the civil rules are followed unless the defendant rebuts the presumption by sufficient evidence.” In re Estate of Popp, 94 Ohio App.3d 640 , 641 N.E.2d 739 (8th Dist. 1994).

2018"Courts will presume service to be proper in cases where the civil rules are followed unless the defendant rebuts the presumption by sufficient evidence." W2 Properties, L.L.C. v. Haboush , 196 Ohio App.3d 194 , 2011-Ohio-4231 , ¶ 15, 962 N.E.2d 858 (1st Dist.).

2018"Courts will presume service to be proper in cases where the civil rules are followed unless the defendant rebuts the presumption by sufficient evidence." W2 Properties, L.L.C. v. Haboush , 196 Ohio App.3d 194 , 2011-Ohio-4231 , ¶ 15, 962 N.E.2d 858 (1st Dist.).

2026Cuyahoga No. 111087, 2022-Ohio-4631, ¶ 16. . . . ‘Where the plaintiff follows the civil rules governing service of process, courts presume that service is proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.’ Id. . . .

2026Cuyahoga No. 111087, 2022-Ohio-4631, ¶ 16. . . . ‘Where the plaintiff follows the civil rules governing service of process, courts presume that service is proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.’ Id. . . .

2026(Citations omitted.) Kassouf v. Barylak, 2023-Ohio-314, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.).

2026(Citations omitted.) Kassouf v. Barylak, 2023-Ohio-314, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.).

2026Neither, however, have merit. 6. {¶ 19} First, Smith was served with the complaint by certified mail in accordance with Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a) at the address listed on her credit account, “[e]videnced by return receipt signed by any person accepting delivery.” “If a plaintiff follows the civil rules in a given case, it is presumed that ‘service was proper unless the defendant rebuts this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.’” Griffin v. Braswell, 2010- Ohio-1597, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), quoting Calvary Invests., L.L.C. v. Clevenger, 2005-Ohio- 7003, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.); Yost v. McNea, 2021-

2026Group, LLC v. Knight, 2026-Ohio-1660, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.).

2025Even if it is what Baldwin suggests, we cannot consider it because the rebuttal of service had to be done in the trial court. “[W]hen a party claims a trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over them due to improper service of process, the appropriate method to challenge such void judgment is through a common law motion to vacate.” Chuang Dev., L.L.C. v. Raina, 2017-Ohio-3000, ¶ 29 (10th Dist.); James v. Top of the Hill Renovations, 2016-Ohio-1190, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.) (“A common law motion to vacate is utilized to set aside a judgment rendered by a court that has not acquired personal jurisdict

2025Hook v. Collins, 2017-Ohio-976 , ¶ 14 (8th Dist.); Lakhodar v. Madani, 2008-Ohio-6502, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.) (presumption can be rebutted where a defendant presents sufficient evidentiary-quality information demonstrating that service was not accomplished).

2025Even if it is what Baldwin suggests, we cannot consider it because the rebuttal of service had to be done in the trial court. “[W]hen a party claims a trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over them due to improper service of process, the appropriate method to challenge such void judgment is through a common law motion to vacate.” Chuang Dev., L.L.C. v. Raina, 2017-Ohio-3000, ¶ 29 (10th Dist.); James v. Top of the Hill Renovations, 2016-Ohio-1190, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.) (“A common law motion to vacate is utilized to set aside a judgment rendered by a court that has not acquired personal jurisdict