[Cite as Miller Fireworks Co., Inc. v. Jackson , 2014-Ohio-2545.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY MILLER FIREWORKS COMPANY, INC. : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 13CA30 v. : DECISION AND BUTCH JACKSON, ET AL., : JUDGMENT ENTRY Defendants-Appellants. : RELEASED 06/05/2014

APPEARANCES: Trina K. Jackson, pro se, Zanesville, Ohio, Appellant. Erik G. Chappell, Lyden & Chappell, Ltd., Sylvania, Ohio, for Appellee.

Hoover, J.
{¶ 1} In May 2013, appellant Trina K. Jack son filed a motion to relieve her from a judgment that had been rendered in favor of Miller Fireworks Company, Inc. Miller Fireworks Company, Inc. had obtained a default judgment against Trina K. Jackson, Butch Jackson, and James E. Jackson 1 in December 2005. Trina K. Jackson had argued that she was unaware of the purchase that James E. “Butch” Jackson had made from Miller Fireworks Company, Inc. Trina K. Jackson also argued that she and James E. “Butch” Jackson had been going through a divorce at the time the original case was pending and that their final decree of divorce ordered James E. “Butch” Jackson to pay the obligation to Miller Fireworks Company, Inc. The trial court found that Trina K. Jackson had waited almost eight years to object to the trial court's entry of judgment against her. The tria l court found that the eight years was not a reasonable amount of

1 Butch Jackson and James E. Jackson are the same person. “Butch” is a nickname for James E. Jackson.Washington App. No. 13CA30 2
time. Further, the trial court found that the divorce order does not protect her from obligations to Miller Fireworks Company, Inc. The trial court denied Trina K. Jackson's motion to relieve her from judgment. Trina K. Jackson timely filed her notice of appeal of the trial court’s judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Appellee, Miller Fireworks Company Inc., originally filed a complaint in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas on October 7, 2005. This complaint was filed against Butch Jackson, Jackson General Contractin g, Inc., James Jackson, and appellant Trina K. Jackson. In the complaint, Miller Fireworks Compan y Inc. alleged that it had sold fireworks to the defendants. Miller Fireworks Company Inc. also alleged that the defendants had not paid for the fireworks and that the defendants owed Miller Fireworks Company Inc. the amount of $17,336 along with interest and costs of the acti on. Miller Fireworks Company Inc. attached a copy of the account statements to the complaint.
{¶ 3} The Clerk of Courts for the Washington County Court of Common Pleas issued summons along with copies of the complaint to all defendants by U.S. certified mail; however, each of the letters were returned to the clerk with the stamped designation of “unclaimed.” Thereafter, on October 27, 2005, the Clerk's Offi ce notified Miller Fireworks Company Inc.'s attorney of the failure of service upon the defe ndants, including appellant Trina K Jackson. On October 31, 2005, Miller Fireworks Company Inc.'s attorney requested regular mail service upon the defendants. The Clerk of Courts then i ssued the summons and the complaint to the defendants by ordinary mail. A cer tificate of mailing shows that the ordinary mail was sent toWashington App. No. 13CA30 3

Trina K. Jackson and the other defendants on November 1, 2005. The ordinary mail envelopes were not returned by the postal authorities with endorsements showing fa ilure of delivery.
{¶ 4} None of the defendants, including Trin a K. Jackson, filed an answer or otherwise pleaded in response to the complaint. As a result, on December 2, 2005, Miller Fireworks Company Inc. filed a motion for default judgment against all defendants. The trial court then granted the motion for default judgment and issued a default judgment entry on December 5, 2005. The trial court ordered judgme nt in favor of Miller Fireworks Company Inc. against the defendants “in the amount of $17,336.00, with interest from October 5, 2005 at the statutory rate of 5.0% per annum; and for court costs herein expended.” The default judgment entry was served upon all defendants including appellant Trina K. J ackson by ordinary mail service as indicated by certificate of mailing on December 6, 2005. No le tter was returned to the Clerk of Court's Office showing failure of delivery.
{¶ 5} Almost 7 1/2 years later, appellant Trina K. Jackson f iled a motion to relieve from judgment. In her motion, Trina K. Jackson ad mitted that defendant James “Butch” Jackson purchased fireworks from Miller Fireworks Compan y, Inc. Trina K. Jackson, however, argued that she was unaware of the purchase and that she was not present during the purchase. She also alleges that she and James “Butch” Jackson were in the process of a divorce at the time. She states that the divorce was granted in August 2006 and that the trial court had ordered “each party is liable for their own debts.”
{¶ 6} On July 8, 2013, Miller Fireworks Company Inc. filed its motion opposing Trina K. Jackson's motion to relieve from judgment. Thereafter, the trial court denied the motion toWashington App. No. 13CA30 4 relieve from judgment on July 15, 2013. The tria l court noted that Trina K. Jackson made no allegation that she had no know ledge of the lawsuit. The tr ial court reasoned as follows:
This Defendant has waited almost 8 year s to object to this Court's entry of judgment against her. This is not a reasonable amount of time. Her divorce order does not protect her from obligations to th e Plaintiff and other creditors unless the Plaintiff and other creditors had been made a party to her divorce action. No request was made in th e parties' divorce to a dd additional defendants.
{¶ 7} Trina K. Jackson timely filed her notice of appeal on August 6, 2013.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 8} Appellant assigns the following errors for our review: Assignment of Error I “Appellant was denied her right to notice of the lawsuit filed against her in case no. 05 OT 297 as prescribed by the ‘due process’ clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and Ohio Civil Rule 3 (A) where she was never served with the complaint or summons in that
case.” Assignment of Error II “The Trial Court erred in stating 'final divorce order was for her co-defendant to pay this obligation.”
Assignment of Error III “The Trial Court Erred in stating ‘the defendant waited almost 8 years to object to this Court's Entry of Judgment against her’. ‘Her divorce order does not protectWashington App. No. 13CA30 5 her from obligations to the Plaintiff and other creditors unless the Plaintiff and other creditors had been made a party to her divorce action.’ Trial Court did not have jurisdiction over the defenda nt-appellant Trina K. Jackson.”
Assignment of Error IV “Defendant-Appellant Trina K. Jackson E rred by not including an affidavit of facts with her Motion for Relief. Trial Court erred in stating ‘she makes no allegation that she had no knowledge of this suit.’ ”
III. Law & Analysis
{¶ 9} We will address appellant's first, fourth, and a portion of her third assignments of error together as they are related. The assignments of error deal with whether service of the original lawsuit was perfected upon appellant, whet her she knew about the lawsuit, and whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the appellant. In appellant's first assi gnment of error, she claims that her due process righ ts were violated as she was “d enied her right to notice of the lawsuit” and that “she was never served with the complaint or summons in that case.” In her fourth assignment of error, appe llant claims that the trial court erred when it stated that “she makes no allegation that she had no knowledge of th is suit.” In her third assignment of error, appellant claims that the trial cour t did not have jurisdiction over her.
{¶ 10} “Generally, Civ. R. 60(B) motions for relief from judgment are committed to a trial court's sound discre tion and its ruling should not be dist urbed absent an abuse of that discretion.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Smith, et al. , 4th Dist. Gallia No. 13CA6, 2014-Ohio1802, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Russo v. Deters, 80 Ohio St.3d 152, 153, 684 N.E.2d 1237 (1997); Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 514 N.E.2d 1122 ( 1987). “An abuse of discretionWashington App. No. 13CA30 6 connotes more than an error of law or judgment; rather, it implies that a tr ial court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Id ., citing Landis v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 339, 342, 695 N.E.2d 1140 (1998); Malone v. Courtyard by Marriott L.P. , 74 Ohio St.3d 440, 448, 659 N.E.2d 1242 (1996). “In applying the abuse of discretion standar d, appellate courts must not substitute their judgment for that of the trial court.” Id ., citing State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 732, 654 N.E.2d 1254 (1995); In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-138, 566 N.E.2d 1181 (1991).
{¶ 11} “To prevail on a Civ. R. 60(B) motion, a movant must demonstrate that: (1) they have a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) they are entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B )(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and where the grounds of relief are Civ. R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id ., citing GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus; see also Griffey at 76, fn. 1.
{¶ 12} Civ.R. 60(B) states as follows: On motion and upon such terms as are just , the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment , order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), mis representation or ot her misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has b een reversed or otherwise vacated, orWashington App. No. 13CA30 7 it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospec tive application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proc eeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect th e finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.
The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules.
{¶ 13} First of all, appellant did not argue fa ilure of service of the lawsuit in the trial court in her motion for relief from judgment. Sh e also did not argue that she had no knowledge of the lawsuit nor did she make any jurisdictiona l arguments. She has forfeited or waived these arguments by failing to raise them in her motion for relief from judgment. However, we will review these assignments of error for plain erro r. “ ‘In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to wh ich no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’ ” Faulks v. Flynn, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 13CA3568, 2014-Ohio-1610, ¶ 20, quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997), syllabus.
{¶ 14} We will first examine the service issu es in this case. Civ.R. 4.6(D) states as follows:Washington App. No. 13CA30 8 If a United States certified or express mail envelope attempting service within or outside the state is returned with an e ndorsement stating that the envelope was unclaimed, the clerk shall forthwith notify the attorney of record or, if there is no attorney of record, the party at whose instance process was issued and enter the fact and method of notification on the a ppearance docket. If the attorney, or serving party, after notification by the clerk, files with the clerk a written request for ordinary mail service, the clerk sha ll send by United States ordinary mail a copy of the summons and complaint or other document to be served to the defendant at the address set forth in th e caption, or at the address set forth in written instructions furnished to the clerk. The mailing shall be evidenced by a certificate of mailing which shall be completed and filed by the clerk. Answer day shall be twenty-eight days after the date of mailing as evidenced by the certificate of mailing. 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 or dinary 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.
{¶ 15} In this case, the summons and complaint were issued to Trina K. Jackson by United States certified mail. Although the servi ce was not obtained due to the return of the certified mail as "unclaimed," the attorney for Miller Fireworks Company Inc. then requested that the summons and complaint be issued by regular mail service. As a result, the clerk sent by United States ordinary mail a copy of the su mmons and complaint to Trina K. Jackson. TheWashington App. No. 13CA30 9 mailing was evidenced by a certificate of mailing which was completed and filed by the clerk. The ordinary mail envelope was not returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement showing failure of delivery. Service was perfected upon Trina K. Jackson in compliance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Trina K. Jack son's due process rights were not violated.
{¶ 16} Likewise, when reading the appellant's motion for relief from judgment, we do not find where appellant argued that she had no knowledge of the lawsuit. We also do not find where appellant argued that the tria l court did not have jurisdicti on over her. Because service was perfected upon Trina K. Jackson pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, we do not believe that she had no knowledge of the lawsuit. We also find that the trial court did have jurisdiction to proceed against appellant. The basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process has not been undermined ; therefore, plain error is not found.
{¶ 17} Since appellant has not es tablished error, much less plain error, with respect to the service and jurisdictional issues and whether she knew about the lawsuit, we overrule her first and fourth assignments of error. We also overru le the portion of her third assignment of error with respect to the jurisdictional issue.
{¶ 18} Next, we will a ddress the second assignment of error and the remainder of the third assignment of error together as they are related. Both assignments deal with the divorce between appellant and her co-defe ndant. Appellant argued in her mo tion to relieve judgment that in her divorce from her co-defendant, it was ordere d “each party is liable for their own debts.”
{¶ 19} In neither appellant's motion for re lief from judgment nor in her appellate brief does she cite or rely upon any of the five grounds for relief set forth in Civ.R. 60(B). Even assuming that appellant's divorce argume nts could be construed to fit under the fifthWashington App. No. 13CA30 10 ground as "any other reason justifying relief from the judgment," 7 1/2 years is not a reasonable amount of time to allow to pass before making the motion for relief from judgment. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's motion for relief from judgment.

IV. Conclusion
{¶ 20} For all of these reasons, we find no mer it in the appellant's a ssignments of error. We overrule the assignments of error and affirm th e judgment of the trial court. The judgment is hereby affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.Washington App. No. 13CA30 11

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRM ED. Appellant shall pay the costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Washington County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure

. Abele, P.J.: Concurs in Judgment & Opinion. McFarland, J.: Concurs in Judgment Only.

For the Court By: Marie Hoover, Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this documen t constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.