Court Opinion

ID: 9882456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:10:05.109638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:26.810325
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Adoption of M.L.K., 2023-Ohio-3184.]

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

 IN THE MATTER OF                                     :
 THE ADOPTION OF                                      :
 M.L.K., A MINOR                                      :   C.A. No. 29748
                                                      :
                                                      :   Trial Court Case No. 2022 ADP 00053
                                                      :
                                                      :   (Appeal from Common Pleas Court-
                                                      :   Probate Division)
                                                      :
                                                      :

                                                ...........

                                                OPINION

                                    Rendered on September 8, 2023

                                                ...........

RICHARD L. KAPLAN, Attorney for Appellant

MICHAEL A. SHEETS, Attorney for Appellee

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

HUFFMAN, J.

        {¶ 1} The biological father of M.L.K. (“Father”) appeals from an order of the probate

court that granted summary judgment in favor of the child’s step-father (“Petitioner”) on a

petition to adopt M.L.K. Father waived his constitutional challenges to R.C. 3107.07(K),

which governs when consent to an adoption is required, by not raising them in the probate

court. The notice of the petition for adoption complied with R.C. 3107.11(B) by informing
                                                                                            -2-

Father of the need to object and to appear at the hearing, and it was not misleading in

that respect. A genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Father was served

with notice of the hearing on the petition for adoption, which precluded summary

judgment; the matter is remanded to the probate court for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

                                  Procedural History

       {¶ 2} Petitioner filed a petition to adopt M.L.K. on May 4, 2022. At the time, M.L.K.

resided with her mother and Petitioner. The petition asserted that Father’s consent to

the adoption was not required because he had “failed without justifiable cause to provide

more than de minimis contact with the minor for a period of at least one year immediately

preceding the filing of the adoption petition or the placement of the minor in the home of

the petitioner.” The probate court set a hearing on the petition for September 16, 2022,

and ordered notice of the hearing to be served on Father not less than 20 days before

the hearing date.

       {¶ 3} With the petition, Petitioner’s attorney filed instructions for service, which

stated: “Please issue service of the Petition for Adoption of Minor by certified mail, return

receipt requested,” upon Father      The same day, the deputy clerk filed a “Notice of

Hearing on Petition for Adoption” (Form 18.2), which contained a certification by the

deputy clerk that the notice was sent by certified mail to Father at a Kettering address.

       {¶ 4} A May 25, 2022 entry on the probate court’s docket reflects successful

service upon someone at Father’s address via FedEx. The FedEx document indicated

that notice of the hearing was delivered at 11:21 a.m. on May 9, 2022; it was signed for
                                                                                             -3-

by “A. M.,” and the courier typed that it was delivered to “A. Michael. (Father’s initials

are A.M., and his middle name is Michael.) On October 3, 2022, Father filed a pro se

document in which he asserted that he objected to the adoption.

       {¶ 5} On December 19, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment; he

argued that the adoption petition had been served on Father on May 25, 2022, and that

Father had not filed his objection within the 14-day period for objections provided by R.C.

3107.07(K).1 Petitioner argued that Father’s consent to the adoption was accordingly

not required.

       {¶ 6} On January 18, 2023, Father, represented by counsel, filed a motion

requesting additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Counsel

argued that Father had not been aware of the motion for summary judgment until January

17, 2023. The court granted the motion for additional time to respond.

       {¶ 7} Father filed a response on February 10, 2023, asserting that there were

“three issues of material fact” which rendered the motion for summary judgment “fatally

flawed.” First, Father asserted that he had not been properly served with notice of the

adoption petition, so the probate court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Father

argued that Petitioner’s instructions for service mandated the clerk to serve the petition

via certified mail, return receipt requested. He also argued that the FedEx printout

Petitioner relied upon for proof of service had an illegible signature and that the signature

was a forgery. Second, he asserted that, without valid service, the statutory 14-day

1
  Pursuant to R.C. 3107.07(K), consent to adoption is not required of “* * * [A] juvenile
court, agency, or person given notice of the petition pursuant to [R.C. 3107.11(A)(1)] that
fails to file an objection to the petition within fourteen days after proof is filed pursuant to
division (B) of that section that the notice was given.”
                                                                                           -4-

objection period under R.C. 3107.07(K) had not begun. Third, he argued that equity

required that his objection be deemed timely filed. Father filed a supporting affidavit

which asserted that he had not been at home on May 9, 2022, and that he had not signed

the FedEx document. His wife filed an affidavit which stated that she had not been home

on May 9, 2022, and had not signed the FedEx document, and that there were no other

people at their home on May 9, 2022.

       {¶ 8} On February 16, 2023, the probate court granted summary judgment in favor

of Petitioner. The court concluded Father had had until June 8, 2022, to file objections

to the petition for adoption, and that his October 3, 2022 objection had been filed outside

of the time allowed by R.C. 3107.07(K).

                                  Constitutional Issues

       {¶ 9} Father asserts four assignments of error. His first assignment of error is:

       [FATHER] WAS DENIED HIS SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE

       PROCESS RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH

       AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION

       16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WHEN THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED

       SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY HOLDING [FATHER] HAD TO FILE AN

       OBJECTION FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER SERVICE.

       {¶ 10} Father asserts that the “notice pursuant to R.C. 3107.07(K)” violated his

substantive due process rights under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the procedural

due process clauses of the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution. He asserts

that the statute is unconstitutional “on its face and as applied.”
                                                                                             -5-

          {¶ 11} Father argues that the notice the court sent did not define specific terms,

such as “objection,” and that the meaning of the phrase “fourteen days after proof of

service of notice of the filing of the petition and of the time and place of hearing is given

to you” on the notice was unclear to him. Father claims that the notice did not make clear

when his objection should be filed, how to file the objection, or how to obtain information

regarding the proper filing of objections. Father argues that the notice was “misleading”

and contradicted itself by suggesting that he could either object or appear to assert his

objection. He cites R.C. 3107.11.

          {¶ 12} Father did not raise any constitutional challenges to R.C. 3107.07(K) or

challenge the allegedly ambiguous nature of the notice in his response to Petitioner’s

motion for summary judgment. Rather, as set forth above, he asserted that there were

three issues of material fact “which rendered the motion fatally flawed,” namely that

service of the notice was improper, that without proper service, the 14-day period for

objections had not begun to run, and that equity required that his objection be deemed

timely.

          {¶ 13} Regarding constitutional challenges, we have previously addressed the

effect of a failure to raise the issue in the trial court:

                 The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[f]ailure to raise at the trial

          court level the issue of the constitutionality of a statute or its application,

          which issue is apparent at the time of trial, constitutes a waiver of such issue

          and a deviation from this state's orderly procedure, and therefore need not

          be heard for the first time on appeal.” [State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120,
                                                                                            -6-

       489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), syllabus]. “The general rule is that ‘an appellate

       court will not consider any error which counsel for a party complaining of

       the trial court's judgment could have called but did not call to the trial court's

       attention at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected

       by the trial court.’ Likewise, ‘[c]onstitutional rights may be lost as finally as

       any others by a failure to assert them at the proper time.’ Accordingly, the

       question of the constitutionality of a statute must generally be raised at the

       first opportunity and * * * this means in the trial court.” Id. at 122, * * *.

State v. Brewer, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26153, 2015-Ohio-693, ¶ 35, quoting State v.

Thompson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20359, 2004-Ohio-5802, ¶ 12.

       {¶ 14} Father failed to assert his constitutional challenges in the trial court, and the

issues therefore are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. As we

noted in Brewer, we “recognize that even where waiver is clear, this court reserves the

right to consider constitutional challenges to the application of statutes in specific cases

of plain error or where the rights and interests involved may warrant it. Id. at ¶ 36, citing

In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149, 527 N.E.2d 286 (1988), syllabus. Here, for the reasons

discussed throughout, consideration of Father’s constitutional challenges is not

warranted.

       {¶ 15} Regarding the alleged misleading and contradictory nature of the notice,

even if we were to construe Father’s response to the motion to summary judgment to

raise this issue, Father’s argument is unpersuasive; the notice was clear regarding

objections and the period within which objections had to be filed.
                                                                                   -7-

{¶ 16} R.C. 3107.11(B) governs notice and states:

       Upon the filing of a petition for adoption that alleges that a parent has

failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with

the minor or to provide for the maintenance and support of the minor, the

clerk of courts shall send a notice to that parent with the following language

in boldface type and in all capital letters:

“A FINAL DECREE OF ADOPTION, IF GRANTED, WILL RELIEVE YOU

OF ALL PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, INCLUDING THE

RIGHT TO CONTACT THE MINOR, AND, EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO

A SPOUSE OF THE ADOPTION PETITIONER AND RELATIVES OF THAT

SPOUSE, TERMINATE ALL LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE

MINOR AND YOU AND THE MINOR'S OTHER RELATIVES, SO THAT

THE MINOR THEREAFTER IS A STRANGER TO YOU AND THE

MINOR'S FORMER RELATIVES FOR ALL PURPOSES, WITH THE

EXCEPTION OF DIVISION (A)(1)(b) OF SECTION 3107.15 OF THE

REVISED CODE. IF YOU WISH TO CONTEST THE ADOPTION, YOU

MUST FILE AN OBJECTION TO THE PETITION WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS AFTER PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE

PETITION AND OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING IS GIVEN TO

YOU. IF YOU WISH TO CONTEST THE ADOPTION, YOU MUST ALSO

APPEAR AT THE HEARING. A FINAL DECREE OF ADOPTION MAY BE

ENTERED IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION
                                                                                             -8-

       PETITION OR APPEAR AT THE HEARING.”

       {¶ 17} The notice sent to Father in this case contained the language of R.C.

3107.11(B) verbatim.

       {¶ 18} The Third District has observed that the sentence which states that a final

decree of adoption may be entered if one fails to file an objection to the adoption petition

or appear at the hearing “could be ambiguous if read without reference to the rest of the

notice.” In re Adoption of N.F., 2019-Ohio-5380, 151 N.E.3d 119, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.). But it

ultimately rejected the argument that there was any ambiguity:

              * * * “However, we may not read individual words of a statute in

       isolation; rather, we are obligated ‘to evaluate a statute “as a whole and

       giv[e] such interpretation as will give effect to every word and clause in it.” ’ ”

       New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Buehrer Group Architecture &

       Eng., Inc., 157 Ohio St.3d 164, 2019-Ohio-2851, 133 N.E.3d 482, ¶ 39,

       quoting Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-

       Ohio-2550, 929 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. Myers v. Spencer

       Twp. Rural School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 95 Ohio St. 367, 373, 116 N.E. 516

       (1917). “A court that is reviewing a statute * * * for ambiguity should direct

       its ‘attention * * * beyond single phrases, and * * * should consider, in proper

       context, all words used by the [General Assembly] in drafting [the statute]

       with a view to its place in the overall [statutory] scheme.’ ”          Matter of

       Adoption of G.M.B., 4th Dist. Pickaway Nos. 19CA12 and 19CA13, 2019-

       Ohio-3884, ¶ 17, quoting D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health,
                                                                                            -9-

       96 Ohio St.3d 250, 2002-Ohio-4172, 773 N.E.2d 536, In 19.

              The second sentence of the statutory notice states that an individual

       wanting to contest an adoption must file an objection within 14 days

       following proof of service of notice of the filing of the petition and of the time

       and place of hearing. R.C. 3107.11(B). The third sentence then states,

       “If you wish to contest the adoption, you must also appear at the hearing.”

       (Emphasis added.)        Id.   The phrase “must also” indicates that an

       individual wishing to contest an adoption has the additional mandatory

       requirement of appearing at the hearing in addition to filing a timely

       objection.   When reading the sentences together, it is clear that an

       individual wishing to contest an adoption has an obligation to both file a

       timely objection and appear at the hearing. Thus, although the final

       sentence of the statutory notice may be ambiguous if read in isolation from

       the rest of the notice, when the statutory notice is read as a whole, the

       reader can come to but one conclusion, and that is that to contest an

       adoption, one must both file a timely objection to the adoption petition and

       appear at the hearing.

Id. at ¶ 27-28.

       {¶ 19} Like the Third District, the Twelfth District has also determined that the

notice on a biological father “which specifically contained language identical to that found

in the second and third sentences of the statutory notice contained in R.C. 3107.11(B),

‘clearly informed’ the father that he was required to file an objection within 14 days of
                                                                                     -10-

receiving the adoption notice.” Id. at ¶ 29, citing In re T.L.S., 12th Dist. Fayette No.

CA2012-02-004, 2012-Ohio-3129. See also In re A.N., 2013-Ohio-3871, 997 N.E.2d

1244, ¶ 33 (3d Dist.).

       {¶ 20} Father waived his constitutional challenges, and the notice of hearing

complied with the language set forth in R.C. 3107.11(B) and was not misleading or

contradictory. Father’s first assignment of error is accordingly overruled.

                                         Service

       {¶ 21} We next consider Father’s second and third assignments of error together.

They are as follows:

              THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE

       OHIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE MONTGOMERY

       COUNTY PROBATE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS FACTS ARE

       MISCONSTRUED.         AS A CONSEQUENCE THE OPINION OF THE

       TRIAL COURT CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION THAT IT DOES NOT

       FOLLOW ITS OWN RULES AND RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE[,]

       THEREFORE VIOLATING [FATHER’S] RIGHTS.

              R.C. 3107.07K DOES NOT APPLY WHEN * * * THERE IS NO

       SERVICE.

       {¶ 22} The standard for summary judgment is well settled:

              Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper when (1)

       there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, (2) the moving party is

       entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds, after
                                                                                   -11-

construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, can

only conclude adversely to that party. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.,

82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-370, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998). The moving party

carries the initial burden of affirmatively demonstrating that no genuine

issue of material fact remains to be litigated. Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio

St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988). To this end, the movant must be

able to point to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) that a

court is to consider in rendering summary judgment. Dresher v. Burt, 75

Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). The substantive law of

the claim or claims being litigated determines whether a fact is “material.”

Perrin v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2020-Ohio-1405, 153 N.E.3d 832, ¶ 29 (2d

Dist.).

          Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party may

not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings.

Dresher at 293; Civ.R. 56(E). Rather, the burden then shifts to the

nonmoving party to respond, with affidavits or as otherwise permitted by

Civ.R. 56, setting forth specific facts that show that there is a genuine issue

of material fact for trial. Dresher at 293. Throughout, the evidence must

be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.

          We review the trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment

de novo. Schroeder v. Henness, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2012-CA-18, 2013-

Ohio-2767, ¶ 42. De novo review means that this court uses the same
                                                                                         -12-

       standard that the trial court should have used, and we examine all the Civ.R.

       56 evidence, without deference to the trial court, to determine whether, as

       a matter of law, no genuine issues exist for trial. Ward v. Bond, 2d Dist.

       Champaign No. 2015-CA-2, 2015-Ohio-4297, ¶ 8.

Budz v. Somerfield, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29550, 2023-Ohio-155, ¶ 24-26.

       {¶ 23} Here, the trial court specifically concluded that service of the notice of the

hearing had been proper. The court indicated that Father’s argument regarding improper

service ignored Loc.R. 78.3(E)(2) of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas,

Probate Division (“Montgomery Probate Loc.R.”), which provides that the “default method

of service by the clerk is by FedEx Corporation.” The probate court also concluded that

Father’s argument that service by FedEx was insufficient was “defeated” by Civ.R.

4.1(A)(1)(b), which permits service by a commercial carrier service requiring a signed

receipt.

       {¶ 24} The probate court further concluded as follows regarding service:

              Father’s entire argument seems to be based upon a false

       impression.       It is not necessary that the notice be delivered directly to

       Father. It is sufficient that the notice be delivered to Father’s place of

       residence, and that the carrier “return a signed receipt showing to whom

       delivered, date of delivery, and address where delivered.”              Civ.R.

       4[.1](A)(1)(b).     Father admits in his Affidavit that he lives at [a specific

       Kettering address]. This is the same address listed in the Return of Service

       provided by Fed Ex. The Return of Service states that the Notice was
                                                                                           -13-

       signed for by someone identified as “A.[M.]”. It does not claim that it was

       signed for by Father, just someone with the same given name and first initial

       as Father. Thus, Father’s Affidavit and Father’s wife’s Affidavit that they

       did not sign for the Notice are insufficient to establish that service was not

       proper. Further, the self-serving affidavits are not credible.

              Similarly, Father’s attack on the Court’s procedure for effecting

       service is unavailing. The procedures the Court uses are authorized by

       Ohio Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(b) and Civ.R. 4(A)(1)(b).2 The facts of this case also

       comply with Civ.R. 73(E), which may be relevant. Father was also not the

       party requesting service and how service is made – it was Petitioner’s

       counsel. For this reason, Father has no standing to object to the method

       used by the Court. Thus[,] any argument that the Court was required to

       effect service by certified mail, not Fed Ex, is unavailing.

(Footnote added.)

       {¶ 25} Citing FedEx’s website, the court discussed FedEx’s policy for deliveries,

noting that the policy did not require a signature from the person identified as the recipient.

The court noted that the FedEx return of service herein established that a person at a

Kettering address signed for the delivery, not that Father did so, which was sufficient to

meet the requirements of Civ.R. 4 and 73. The court concluded that Father’s argument

that the court did not have proper jurisdiction over him lacked merit.

       {¶ 26} Father argues on appeal that the probate court’s opinion “ignore[d] the

2
  Civ.R. 4 governs the issuance of summons upon the filing of a complaint. It is divided
into section (A)-(F), without subparts, and there is no “Civ.R.4(A)(1)(b).”
                                                                                         -14-

Clerk’s records which contain the dispositive facts,” because it focused on the parts of the

Civil and Local Probate Rules which state that a common carrier is the default method of

service.   Father asserts that default service “is subordinate to counsel’s filing of

Instructions for Service” by certified mail return receipt requested. According to Father,

Montgomery Probate Loc.R. 78.3(E)(2) and Civ.R. 4.1, “as a matter of law, mandated the

Probate Clerk serve the documents by U.S. Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and

not by default FEDEX.” Father asserts that the clerk’s office ignored the service order

by Petitioner’s attorney.

       {¶ 27} Father further asserts that the signature on the FedEx document was a

forgery. He directs our attention to his and his wife’s affidavits. Father argues that a

forged signature constituted “a filing of fraudulent service” and that improper service

“equals no personal jurisdiction.” Accordingly, he argues that the 14-day period for

objections was not triggered. Father asserts that delivery by certified mail, return receipt

requested, “creates a situation where delivery is either made or service is returned to the

court,” while the “FedEx delivery process creates a situation where forgery and fraud can

be used.” Father suggests that a FedEx driver may have forged his name.

       {¶ 28} Civ.R. 4.1 governs process and methods of service. Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a)

governs service by United States certified or express mail. It provides:

              * * * Evidenced by return receipt signed by any person, service of

       any process shall be by United States certified or express mail unless

       otherwise permitted by these rules. The clerk shall deliver a copy of the

       process and complaint or other document to be served to the United States
                                                                                          -15-

      Postal Service for mailing at the address set forth in the caption or at the

      address set forth in written instructions furnished to the clerk as certified or

      express mail return receipt requested, with instructions to the delivering

      postal employee to show to whom delivered, date of delivery, and address

      where delivered.

      {¶ 29} Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(b), upon which the trial court relied, governs service by

commercial carrier service. It provides:

             * * * Unless the serving party furnishes written instructions to the clerk

      that service be made pursuant to Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a), the clerk may make

      service of any process by a commercial carrier service utilizing any form of

      delivery requiring a signed receipt. The clerk shall deliver a copy of the

      process and complaint or other document to be served to a commercial

      carrier service for delivery at the address set forth in the caption or at the

      address set forth in written instructions furnished to the clerk, with

      instructions to the carrier to return a signed receipt showing to whom

      delivered, date of delivery, and address where delivered.

      {¶ 30} Montgomery Probate Loc.R. 78.3(E)(2), upon which the probate court also

relied, governs service of summons in probate matters and states: “Civ.R. 4 through 4.7

shall apply in all probate proceedings requiring service of summons, unless otherwise

provided by law. See Civ.R. 73(D).”

      {¶ 31} Civ.R. 73 governs the probate division of the court of common pleas, and it

distinguishes between the service of summons and the service of notice. Civ.R. 73(C)
                                                                                       -16-

governs service of summons and provides that “Civ.R. 4 through 4.6 shall apply in any

proceeding in the probate division of the court of common pleas requiring service of

summons.”

      {¶ 32} Civ.R. 73(E), on the other hand, specifically governs service of notice. It

provides:

      In any proceeding where any type of notice other than service of summons

      is required by law or deemed necessary by the court, and the statute

      providing for notice3 neither directs nor authorizes the court to direct the

      manner of its service, notice shall be given in writing and may be served on

      behalf of any interested party without court intervention by one of the

      following methods:

      ***

      (3) By United States certified or express mail return receipt requested, or by

      a commercial carrier service utilizing any form of delivery requiring a signed

      receipt, addressed to the person to be served at the person’s usual place

      of residence with instructions to the delivering postal employee or to the

      carrier to show to whom delivered, date of delivery, and address where

      delivered, provided that the certified or express mail envelope or return of

      the commercial carrier is not returned showing failure of delivery[.]

      {¶ 33} We conclude that the issue of service is governed by Civ.R. 73(E)(3) and

not by Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(b) and Montgomery Probate Loc.R. 78.3(E)(2). Civ.R. 73(E) is

3
 See R.C. 3107.11, discussed below. Section (C) of that rule requires that “[a]ll notices
required under this section shall be given as specified in the Rules of Civil Procedure.”
                                                                                       -17-

specific to the service of notice in the probate court. While we conclude that service via

FedEx was proper under these circumstances, we further conclude that the affidavits of

Father and his wife created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether service was

actually completed on Father, requiring that the probate court conduct a hearing and

determine whether service of the notice was perfected on Father Although the probate

court’s docket reflects successful service upon someone at Father’s address, he and his

wife averred that they were away from their home at the time of service, and Father”s wife

averred that no one else was at their home on May 9, 2022, at 11:21 a.m. The probate

court concluded that the affidavits attached to Father’s memorandum in opposition to the

motion for summary judgment lacked credibility, but “it is well established that the

determination of credibility is beyond the province of a summary judgment proceeding.”

Bank One, Dayton, NA v. Barnes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 14925, 1995 WL 783666, *3,

(Dec. 20, 1995). Having determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed, we

conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Petitioner.

      {¶ 34} Father’s second and third assignments of error are overruled as to the

method of service of the notice, and they are sustained as to the grant of summary

judgment in favor of Petitioner. The trial court must conduct a hearing on the issue of

whether Father was properly served with notice as required by law.

                                         Equity

      {¶ 35} Father’s fourth assignment of error is as follows:

      EQUITY DEMANDS THAT [FATHER] BE TREATED FAIRLY.

      {¶ 36} Having found that a genuine issue of material fact existed and that the trial
                                                                                      -18-

court erred in granting Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, we need not consider

the merits of Father’s fourth assignment of error.

       {¶ 37} The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for

further proceedings.

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

TUCKER, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.