[Cite as Trilogy Health Servs., L.L.C. v. Frenzley, 2018-Ohio-1790.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES, LLC : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

EDITH FRENZLEY, ET AL. : Case No. CT2017-0070 

 : 

 Defendants - Appellants : O P I N I O N 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

CH2017-0276 

 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 30, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants 

MARC S. BLUBAUGH MARK W. STUBBINS 

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & GRANT J. STUBBINS 

Aronoff, LLP Stubbins, Watson, Bryan & 

41 S. High Street Witucky Co., L.P.A. 

Suite 2600 59 North Fourth Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 P.O. Box 488 

 Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0488 

 

ELIZABETH R. EMANUEL 

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & 

Aronoff LLP 

200 Public Square, Suite 2300 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0070 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Defendants-appellants Edith Frenzley and John Frenzley appeal from the 

September 18, 2017 Final Judgment Entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common 

Pleas granting the Motion for Default Judgment filed by plaintiff-appellee Trilogy Health 

Services, LLC. and entering judgment against defendants-appellants. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On August 8, 2017, appellee Trilogy Health Services LLC filed a complaint 

against appellants Edith and John Frenzley. Appellee, in its complaint, alleged that it had 

provided room, board, nursing and personal care and other services to appellants and 

that appellants had failed to pay for such services. Appellee set forth claims alleging 

breach of contract, quantum meruit, payment of spousal necessaries and fraudulent 

transfers. A copy of the summons and complaint were sent by certified mail on August 8, 

2017 to appellants at their residence at 3305 Fairway Lane, Zanesville, Ohio 43701 and 

to appellants at their real estate tax mailing address at 4504 Stratford Cir. W., Zanesville, 

Ohio 43701. 

{¶3} The summons and complaint sent to appellants’ residence was returned 

unclaimed. The summons and complaint sent to appellants’ tax mailing address was 

signed for on August 9, 2017 by Jessie or Jessica Prouty. 

{¶4} Appellee, on September 13, 2017, filed a Motion for Default Judgment 

against appellants. The trial court, as memorialized in a Final Judgment Entry dated 

September 18, 2017, granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of appellee and 

against appellant Edith Frenzley in the amount of $6,999.00 and against appellant John 

Frenzley in the amount of $9,181.10. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0070 3 

{¶5} Appellants now raise the following assignment of error on appeal: 

{¶6} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN 

FAVOR OF APPELLEE. 

I 

{¶7} Appellants, in their sole assignment of error, argue that the trial court erred 

in granting default judgment in favor of appellee because the trial court did not have 

personal jurisdiction over appellants because they were never served with the summons 

and complaint. 

{¶8} Absent proper service of process, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter a 

judgment, and if it nevertheless renders a judgment, that judgment is a nullity and void ab 

initio. Lincoln Tavern, Inc. v. Snader, 165 Ohio St. 61, 64, 133 N.E.2d 606 (1956). 

However, we note that a question of personal jurisdiction may not be raised for the first 

time on appeal. In re Bailey Children, 5th Dist. Stark No.2004CA00386, 2005–Ohio–2981. 

See also Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Williams, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 14 CAE 0029, 

2014–Ohio–4553. A party may challenge the entry of default judgment against them by 

filing either a Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment or a motion to vacate the 

judgment on grounds that it is void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction. Linquist v. 

Drossel, 5th Dist. Stark No.2006 CA 00119, 2006–Ohio–5712. In the case sub judice, 

appellants failed to challenge the default judgment against them by filing a motion to 

vacate based on a claim of insufficiency of service and thus cannot raise this issue for the 

first time on appeal. 

{¶9} Appellants’ sole assignment of error is, therefore, overruled. 

 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0070 4 

{¶10} Accordingly, the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common 

Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Delaney, J. concur.