the complaint in accordance with the dictates of either federal rule for well or because the federal rules defer to state law for purposes of service heigho rule of to returns of service that were filed by plaintiff's counsel he indicated that he also gave her copies of summonses and complaints for both literally matthew gandy and either the federal rules governing service of process or of the state rules and it's a very very well established that without acquiring personal jurisdiction over the person  defendant in a civil action a court cannot rounder a valid binding judgment against that person yes yes can can that person can  appearing as mr candy will yes a person can certainly waive the defense of lack of service in sufficient service of process  he spoke for perhaps one and certainly less than two minutes at that default judgment damages sounding how long was the damages hearing i'm going to ballpark it i would say it was perhaps two at the time mr d n d for paragraphs according to the quotes i have here i mean he says there's more talks about whether it was bad judgment or stupid and he apologized  this just sort of a judgment between between us or the or the trial court as to whether that was extensive enough is that what this appeal is about i don't think that it it boils down to appropriate order of practical question which may not resolve any of the legal issues which is if we were to say there is no jurisdiction where there was no sufficient service over the son but there was over the father and of course over the mother is there a difference in the amount of money that the family as a whole  and as i say i'm not sure makes a difference i'm just curious about whether this isn't a tempest in the teapot as to which member of the family owes the money but the same out of money is owed is that the case will be what i don't have an answer and i think the only way to actually get an answer your honor would be for the gandy thinly to confer it and sit consult with me so that i could understand the very answer to apparently everyone except myself felt down at the trial court level had not been part and parcel of the original default judgment when it and what happened again is that  motion first of all judgment got filed only against the lease again and as we know larry matthew d n d showed up at the hearing for damages on that by that time though you didn't heard a general of general appearance which included appearing for the sun  oh no no no no your honor all of this happened six months before i had met again sort of five months before i had meth again i thousand dollars judgment had oh no the judgment the five thousand dollar at least all but the five thousand is that it is a joint and several or is it several you don't even position on whether it's divided up that way it is joint and several  this this family is is taken away from the responsibility it still remains with the other two members of the families families on the hook under your that a joint and several obligation or as a several obligation has nothing it is doing to him lee is has to do you could have three non family members and still ask the question whether it's joined or several your honor it's a joint and several judgments as to the initial i will say twelve and a half thousand dollars worth of compensatory damages and twenty six thousand seven hundred dollars worth of attorney fees so it's joined several as last issue with g g into court in fact reserve following a conference with the court they said if you address this issue you're not waiving your any of the jurisdictional arguments that you're honor well we understand you have any other arguments that deal with the with the jurisdiction or the service well yes there simply wasn't service of process again larry right everyone knows yes well wasn't the question is do some of these other actions and make up for that and if you're talking about the actions he is talking about subsequent conduct in the underlying for a court case about mr mr gandy appearing in court making statements arguments cross examining a witness making statements behalf of this we're talking about or perhaps it believes that that did constitute larry gandee submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court such as they believe to render a valid judgment against him my thoughtlessness this is a d the essence of the appellate argument in this case is is clear there are ways to for a court to gain personal jurisdiction defended so it was a process is not the only way for a court certainly your honor and that's actually addresses i can answer that question and address and address your joint and several questions as well the the hearing the damages hearing was over under the state statute twenty three point seven the parent of the minor child and may recover an action in compensate or damages not to exceed and it goes through that i was at it in any way responsive to question about the cheese service against e g statute which makes his parents liable of the parents means that the there's a lot that means that their service over the child yes me and if you want to me i continue this is the better from the statute a parent and the parents minor child or jointly and severally liable as specified in this this vicarious liability under the statute under twenty three twenty three zero seven point seven zero if you have a claim against the child and you don't need if you have a claim against its parent you don't need to serve the child right honor and that's what you even argue that in your brief i believe we included that statute i don't know what is the argument in your brief regarding did regarding driving the fact that this statute confers service when there is no service just because you first liability can can mean that one of the persons who might be jointly liable if you assume and recover doesn't have to be served well no it's not necessarily that that that person doesn't have to be served but then how is this person served with that's her question because because the because under that statute a minor means a person who is under the age of eighteen who is not married at the time act at the point that we had service of mrs gandy she was his there was not a this is this was the statute imparts liability on the minor and having service over the the parent brings in the minor well assuming that's not persuasive to us do you have any other argument with respect to the mine with respect to the minor and and services  have a concern with whether the discreet court had jurisdiction over the minor in light of the fact that the minor was not served minor was not served right that is in the minor did not appear the minor was not served and did the sume ng that's the case normally you would say well the judgement against minors improper right and you're saying if correct me if i misunderstand you you're saying that the statute which confers liability which is not a service statute at all it's not a jurisdiction statute at all it's just a liability statute says in certain circumstances there's joint and several liability among the minor and his parents you're saying that statute is sufficient to to if their service on one of the persons that the liability statute says there's that that substantive liability means that you don't have to worry about service against a minor i'm saying assume for the moment without deciding that we're not persuaded by half of the mean you lose with respect to the minor do you have some other argument with the spec to the matter that's my question understood i don't think we necessarily lose fifteen or younger yes your honor but the this ain't the same statute also says that if the service dealing with service in particular that unless the person is represented by a guardian in this case because i'm getting confused in all of this too because and i want to try to keep the liability and service separate yes we should keep leaping forward to liability and getting away from service but in response to judge rogers question just now that i understand you to argue that because this person was a minor and because there was no guardian that somehow the parents appearance in court as a as a par statutes in ohio individual who is and admittedly so we were unaware of his age at the time we that he did not know if he was sixteen we didn't know what his age was at at at the at the time of service but under the statute under the service statute as we understand it a minor in serving in the only a guardian is necessary someone who is a guardian or conservator any parent is is considered to be a guardian that is essentially what we're arguing then what do you do pardon me what do you do with ohio rule of civil procedure for two which says service of process shall be made upon an individual other than a person under sixteen by serving the  getting back to the statute as a practical matter these statutes whether that's the one in ohio or all over the country are predicated upon the fact that kids don't have any money so if you want to damage one is the parents say and so but that brings me to the question i want to ask you was i correct in what i said that it appeared that there was a separate five thousand dollars punit damage award made against the minor yesterday on that you are you were accurate so what occurred at this stage where where mr gandy interrupted the that that damages hearing that was specifically on the state issue and as opposing counsel mentioned a moment ago this went on for so whether or not we were arguing all of the claims we had state claims and federal claims the five thousand dollar  jurisdictional issue but just so that we're all clear on this there is a stand alone five thousand dollar award against yes roger and so if you were it's not like we're just shuffling money around from the same money from different pockets or something if you were to lose today that five thousand dollars would be god ye of all of the court's questions have been practical in nature looking for a practical solution but there is a real impracticality saying that when a layperson this isn't the whole service issue it's time to make certain that a person who have notice of the action and an opportunity to appear and defend by this record it is clear that mr gandy had notice and aborted himself of the opportunity to appear and make statements that participate so be the harm you argue about a lay person or you say has taken a practical lay person it's really not read a bit because the whole purpose of services to give the person notice them up or to have them come before court their proper procedure and then the action correct well yes your honor but i don't that the whole structure of federal and ohio rule for is just an abstract concept this court other courts of repeatedly held that notice and an opportunity to be heard at a practical level is since enough yes still have to follow the rule and here's the real problem as i see it but let's say that mr dandies appearance on that date the to his wife where she works arguing that there was no service right now while you know i'm just trying to clarify rather odd set of facts there certainly wasn't but i'm going back to the practical point if we deem that mr ganji waves surface when the so that the default judgement hearing what at what exactly does that mean shouldn't that start and answer period running case will be submitted and you can just