[Cite as Scalise v. Johnston Invest., L.L.C. , 2018-Ohio-3469.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) KIRSTEN M. SCALISE, Fisal Officer Summit County Fiscal Office Appellee

v. JOHNSTON INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. Appellant C.A. No. 28897

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2017-06-2726

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: August 29, 2018

TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Johnston Investments, LLC, appeals the judgment of foreclosure entered by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on November 14, 2017. We affirm.

I. {¶2} In June 2017, Kristen M. Scalise, as Fis cal Officer of Summit County, Ohio, filed a complaint for foreclosure of liens for land taxe s, assessments, penalties, and interest. Johnson Investments, LLC, (“Johnston”) wa s one of several defe ndants named in the complaint as having a claim or interest upon the premises. Instructions were given to the Clerk of Courts to make both certified mail and regular mail service of the complaint on all defendants. Additionally, an affidavit for service by publica tion was filed in July 2017, with proof of publication being filed in September 2017. Johnston filed an answer to the complaint on October 18, 2017, raising defenses including lack of jurisdiction and insu fficiency of process and service of process.2

{¶3} On October 26, 2017, the Fiscal Officer filed a motion for default judgment and a motion for summary judgment, with the trial co urt entering judgment on November 14, 2017. Johnston now appeals, raising one assignment of error.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT LACKED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER JOHNSTON INVESTMENTS LLC ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE [WAS] INSUFFICIENCY OF PROCESS AND/OR INSUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS; AS SUCH, THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 14, 2017[,] IS VOID AB INITIO. {¶4} In its assignment of error, Johnston I nvestments argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because of insufficiency of process or service of process, and that as a consequence the trial court’s judgme nt was void ab initio. We disagree. {¶5} “Personal jurisdiction is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo.” Fraley v. Estate of Oeding , 138 Ohio St.3d 250, 2014-Ohio-452, ¶ 11. “A de novo review requires an independent review of the trial court’s decision wit hout any deference to the trial

court’s deter mination.” State v. Consilio , 9th Dist. Summit No. 22761, 2006-Ohio-649, ¶ 4. {¶6} In making its argument that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction, Johnston sets forth several assertions, c ontending that service of process was not perfected in accordance with Civ.R. 4.6(D), that service by publication was not an authorized method, and that service by publication was defective. Johnst on’s assignment of error, however, is premised on the theory that the judgment is void ab initio as a result of the trial court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over it. This premise is flawed at the outset, as a tax foreclosure is an action in rem. This Court has previously held “that a tax foreclosure action brought pursuant to R.C. 5721.18 constitutes an in rem proceeding, and thus ‘it ope rates on the land itself and not on the title of the one in whose3

name the property is listed for taxation.’” Lorain County Treasurer v. Schultz , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 08CA009487, 2009-Ohio-1828, ¶ 10, quoting In re Foreclosure of Lien for Delinquent Taxes by Action in Rem , 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 06-JE-40, 2008-Ohio-1173, ¶ 18, quoting Hunter

v. Grier , 173 Ohio St. 158, 161 (1962). Therefore, an “alleged error based on a lack of personal jurisdiction is misplaced.” Id

. {¶7} Johnston contends that because the compla int seeks the foreclosure of all claims and interest in the property, it is an action in personam rather than an action in rem, but provides no authority in support of this argument. See App.R. 16(A)(7). Moreove r, as discussed above, this Court has previously established that a tax foreclosure is an action in rem. Schultz at ¶ 10. We also note that the face of the complaint specifically sets forth that it seeks foreclosure by

action in rem. {¶8} We conclude that the trial court’s order of foreclosure was not void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction. This assignment of error is decided solely upon the issue of personal jurisdiction as it is the basis of Johnst on’s appeal, and we make no determinations with regard to any requirements, statutory or otherwise, of notice or due process. {¶9} Johnston’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. {¶10} Johnston’s assignment of error is overru led. The judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.4

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22 (C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

THOMAS A. TEODOSIO FOR THE COURT

CALLAHAN, J. CONCURS. CARR, J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.

APPEARANCES: ROBERT C. MEEKER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. PETER W. NISCHT, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.