Court Opinion

ID: 9371953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 14:06:52.234228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.310271
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Vinebrook Homes, L.L.C. v. Matlock, 2023-Ohio-478.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    MONTGOMERY COUNTY

 VINEBROOK HOMES LLC                                  :
                                                      :
       Appellant                                      :        C.A. No. 29600
                                                      :
 v.                                                   :        Trial Court Case No. 22 CVR 3185
                                                      :
 TAYLOR MATLOCK, ET AL.                               :        (Civil Appeal from Municipal Court)
                                                      :
       Appellees                                      :
                                                      :

                                               ...........

                                               OPINION

                                   Rendered on February 17, 2023

                                               ...........

LAURENCE A. LASKY, Attorney for Appellant

TAYLOR MATLOCK, Pro Se Appellee

                                             .............

EPLEY, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant Vinebrook Homes, LLC, appeals from a judgment of the Dayton

Municipal Court, which awarded Appellees Taylor Matlock and Michael Mullins money

from escrowed rent and reduced their rent by 50% until Vinebrook met certain conditions.
                                                                                           -2-

For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be vacated.

       I.     Facts and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} In the summer of 2022, Matlock and Mullins were tenants of Vinebrook

Homes, living at a property on Gebhart Avenue in Dayton. According to the record, the

property had major structural and environmental issues which rendered the back half of

the property unsafe and uninhabitable. An engineer’s report (presented as an exhibit at

the transcribed hearing) noted that a large sinkhole had developed under the rear deck

and paved patio at the rear of the house, and he represented that a concrete retaining

wall on the property had failed, resulting in a 45-foot section that had “tilted severely into

the alley.” The report concluded that the house itself was habitable, but the back half of

the property – beginning as soon as one would step out of the back door – was unsafe.

       {¶ 3} Matlock and Mullins made Vinebrook aware of the problem, but the issues

persisted. Consequently, on June 28, 2022, Matlock and Mullins filed an action to escrow

the rent with the Dayton Municipal Court. The court’s docket indicates that on July 27,

2022, service of the complaint was attempted on Vinebrook via certified mail; however,

the letter was returned as “not deliverable as addressed.” The docket also indicates that

on August 16, 2022, the trial notice was returned as “undeliverable” for the same reason.

       {¶ 4} Nevertheless, Matlock and Mullins appeared before the magistrate for a

hearing on August 15, 2022. No one representing Vinebrook was present. The next day,

the magistrate issued a decision in which she found that the condition of the premises

was “one half uninhabitable” and reduced the rent by 50% to “offset the lack of use of the

rear portion of the premises.” In addition, Matlock and Mullins were awarded $300 of the
                                                                                       -3-

escrow funds for the cost of an engineer’s report used as evidence, and half of the funds

were released “for the condition of the premises for both months escrowed, for a total of

$1,305.” In all, Matlock and Mullins were awarded $1,605. The trial court adopted the

magistrate’s decision on August 16, 2022, although it was not officially journalized until

August 18.

      {¶ 5} Vinebrook has filed this appeal raising one assignment of error.

      II.    Jurisdiction

      {¶ 6} In its lone assignment of error, Vinebrook argues that the trial court’s

judgment should be set aside because it did not have jurisdiction. We agree.

      {¶ 7} To render a valid judgment, a trial court must have personal jurisdiction over

a defendant. Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984). The court

may obtain personal jurisdiction via service of process, voluntary appearance, or waiver.

Id. “[T]he Supreme Court of Ohio has made it very clear that the plaintiff has the sole

burden of perfecting service. If service is not perfected, the trial court lacks personal

jurisdiction over the defendant and the action is not commenced.” Fin. Freedom

Aquisition, L.L.C. v. Heirs of Thomas, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25047, 2012-Ohio-3845,

¶ 10. A judgment rendered without proper service or entry of appearance is void. Blon v.

Royal Flush Inc., 2022-Ohio-1958, 191 N.E. 3d 505, ¶ 15 (7th Dist.).

      {¶ 8} In this case, the court’s docket makes it clear that Vinebrook was not served

with the complaint. On July 27, 2022, the docket reveals that service of the rent escrow

application, which was sent by certified mail, was “Returned – Unserved – Not Deliverable

As Addressed to Vinebrook Homes, LLC – Plaintiff was Unsuccessful.” Similarly, the “trial
                                                                                          -4-

notice” was journalized as “Not Deliverable As Addressed” on August 16, 2022. According

to the court’s official docket, Vinebrook was not served the complaint or the trial notice.

That Vinebrook was not represented at the August 15 hearing gives further credence to

that position. In fact, it appears that the first document that was successfully served upon

Vinebrook was the trial court’s final appealable order on August 18, 2022.

       {¶ 9} The record indicates that Vinebrook was not given proper service of the suit

and did not voluntarily appear in court or waive service. We conclude, then, that the trial

court lacked jurisdiction over Vinebrook, and the judgment rendered against it is void.

       {¶ 10} Vinebrook’s assignment of error is sustained.

       III.   Conclusion

       {¶ 11} The judgment of the trial court will be vacated.

                                     .............

WELBAUM, P.J. and LEWIS, J., concur.