General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert

10 Citing cases

  1. Schuerger v. Clevenger

    2005 Ohio 5333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)

    (Emphasis added.) {ΒΆ 22} In Ramirez v. Shagawat, supra, this court stated "[a] `certificate of mailing' must be a United States Postal Service confirmation of mailing," citing Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 275. This court went on to say that "service is `deemed complete' under Civ.R. 4.6(D) when: (1) the `certificate of mailing,' time-stamped by the United States Postal Service, is entered upon the record and (2) the ordinary mail envelope is not returned to the court with an endorsement showing failure of delivery," citing Hayes v. Gradisher (Oct. 30, 1996), Summit App. No. 17791.

  2. State Auto Ins. of Ohio v. Wilson

    2020 Ohio 4456 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    {ΒΆ7} Proper service of process is required before a court can render a valid default judgment. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert, 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 275 (9th Dist.1986). Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a) provides for service to be made by certified or express mail.

  3. Kirner & Boldt Co. v. Alman

    2020 Ohio 1505 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    Accordingly, pursuant to Civ.R. 4.6(D), service by ordinary mail on Alman is deemed complete. {ΒΆ 8} Kirner & Boldt directs us to Ramirez v. Shagawat , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83259, 2004-Ohio-1001, 2004 WL 396335, in which this court opined, in reliance on Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert , 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 515 N.E.2d 959 (9th Dist.1986), that a "certificate of mailing" pursuant to Civ.R. 4.6(D) requires United States Postal Service confirmation of the mailing. Kirner & Boldt attached to its brief on appeal an unauthenticated copy of a U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing that presumably shows the post office mailed the complaint and summons to Alman.

  4. Runyon v. Hawley

    2018 Ohio 2444 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    {ΒΆ11} Proper service of process is required before a court can render a valid default judgment. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert, 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 275 (9th Dist.1986). When a plaintiff follows the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure that govern service of process, a presumption of proper service arises.

  5. Hall v. Silver

    2018 Ohio 1706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    {ΒΆ20} Proper service of process is required before a court can render a valid default judgment. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert, 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 275 (9th Dist.1986). When a plaintiff follows the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure that govern service of process, a presumption of proper service arises.

  6. Bowers v. Craven

    2009 Ohio 2222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    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."{ΒΆ 9} Craven relies on this Court's prior decision in Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 274, in support of her argument that service was defective for lack of confirmation of mailing by the United States Postal Service. In Kollert, we relied on the then-current Staff Notes to Civ. R. 4.6(D) in holding that "[a] `certificate of mailing' contemplates a confirmation of mailing by the United States Postal Service."

  7. Ramirez v. Shagawat

    2004 Ohio 1001 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

    {ΒΆ 14} A "certificate of mailing" must be a United States Postal Service confirmation of mailing. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 275, 515 N.E.2d 959. Thus, service is "`deemed complete'" under Civ.R. 4.6(D) when: (1) the "certificate of mailing," time-stamped by the United States Postal Service, is entered upon the record and (2) the ordinary mail envelope is not returned to the court with an endorsement showing failure of delivery. Hayes v. Gradisher, Summit App. No. 17791, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4733, at *6.

  8. KARAS v. ROAR

    No. 98 JE 4 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2000)   Cited 2 times

    Id. Then, in Federal Natl. Mtge. Assoc. v. McIntyre (August 28, 1996), Columbiana App. No. 95 CO 23, unreported, we declared that a certificate of mailing is a confirmation by the United States Postal Service. Id. at 4, citing General Motors Acceptance Corp.v. Kollert (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 275. "A notation by the clerk of courts will not suffice." Id. Thus, we held that the lack of a certificate of mailing from the Postal Service constitutes failure of service where the defendant files an affidavit claiming he never received service.

  9. Weyandt v. Davis

    122 Ohio App. 3d 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    This court has stated that "[a] `certificate of mailing' contemplates a confirmation of mailing by the United States Postal Service." Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 276, 515 N.E.2d 959, 960. That was accomplished in this case.

  10. United Home Fed. v. Rhonehouse

    76 Ohio App. 3d 115 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that service by ordinary mail under OHIO CIV. R. 4.6(D) requires evidencing by a certificate of mailing, and that "[s]ervice is presumed complete when the certificate of mailing is entered in the record, unless the envelope is returned marked 'failure of delivery'"

    Proper service of process is needed before the court can render a valid default judgment. Westmoreland v. Valley Homes Mut. Hous. Corp. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 291, 293-294, 71 O.O.2d 262, 263-264, 328 N.E.2d 406, 408-409, and Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kollert (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 274, 275, 515 N.E.2d 959, 960. Therefore, a default judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the parties is void.