Crown Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. McCabe

2025 Ohio 2384

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: CA2025-01-003
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Crown Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. McCabe, 2025-Ohio-2384.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2025-01-003

: OPINION - vs - 7/7/2025 :

HELENA A. McCABE, :

Appellant. :

CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 23CV96685

Levy & Associates, LLC, and Crystal M. Duplay and Erin Enderle, for appellee.

Helena A. McCabe, pro se.

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Helena A. McCabe, appeals the decision of the Warren County

Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to appellee, Crown Asset

Management, LLC. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.

{¶ 2} On October 30, 2023, appellee filed a complaint against McCabe seeking

to recover on a debt then due and owing in the amount of $16,930.82 plus interest. The

complaint was properly served on McCabe via United States certified mail on November

13, 2023. Just over two weeks later, on November 30, 2023, McCabe filed an answer Warren CA2025-01-003

denying appellee's claim against her. Following nearly a year of discovery, on September

3, 2024, the trial court issued an order scheduling the matter for a bench trial to be held

on December 11, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. There is no dispute that McCabe received a copy of

this scheduling order.

{¶ 3} On November 5, 2024, appellee moved for summary judgment against

McCabe. Appellee's motion included a certificate of service certifying that an original copy

of its motion had been served upon McCabe via United States mail. McCabe did not file

any response to appellee's motion for summary judgment.

{¶ 4} On December 4, 2024, the trial court issued an entry granting appellee's

motion for summary judgment against McCabe in the amount of $16,930.82 plus interest.

Two days later, on December 6, 2024, McCabe filed a letter with the trial court in which

she alleged that she had "never received correspondence or had the chance to appear

in court to further defend this issue, which is a fraudulent claim." McCabe also alleged

that she had "never received any notice to appear in court except for a rescheduled date

of December 11, 2024 at 9:00 a.m."

{¶ 5} The trial court did not issue any response to McCabe's letter. Rather, on

January 3, 2025, McCabe filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's entry granting

summary judgment to appellee. Approximately five months later, on May 21, 2025,

McCabe's appeal was submitted to this court for review. McCabe's appeal now properly

before this court for decision, McCabe has raised one assignment of error for review.

{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WITHOUT INSURING PROPER SERVICE OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT TO [McCABE], IN VIOLATION OF OHIO RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

56(C) AND DUE PROCESS.

{¶ 7} In her single assignment of error, McCabe argues the trial court erred by

-2- Warren CA2025-01-003

granting summary judgment to appellee because she was never properly served with

appellee's motion for summary judgment. We find no merit to this claim.

{¶ 8} "Under Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c), a party may be served with a motion by mailing it

to the person's last known address by United States mail." CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Guinther,

2013-Ohio-4014, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.). When this method of service is used, "service is

complete upon mailing." Cuyahoga Hts. v. Ram Supply Chain, LLC, 2021-Ohio-315, ¶ 33

(8th Dist.). "A presumption of proper service exists when the record reflects that the Civil

Rules pertaining to service of process have been followed." JP Morgan Chase Bank v.

Ritchey, 2007-Ohio-4225, ¶ 40 (11th Dist.). This presumption may be rebutted, however.

See Evans v. Henderson, 2018-Ohio-2531, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 9} "The presumption of proper service may be rebutted by sufficient evidence

that service was not received." Lacy v. State, 2020-Ohio-3089, ¶ 90 (11th Dist.). For

example, this evidence may come in the form of a sworn to affidavit for it is well-settled

that "an unsworn statement is insufficient to rebut the aforementioned presumption."

Speigel v. Ianni, 2023-Ohio-3809, ¶ 74 (1st Dist.). This is because unsworn statements,

"such as bare allegations in an appellate brief," do not constitute evidence. Poorman v.

Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2002-Ohio-1059, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.).

{¶ 10} In this case, other than her bare, unsworn statements to both the trial court

and this court on appeal, McCabe has presented no evidence to rebut the presumption

of proper service of appellee's motion for summary judgment. That is to say, nowhere

within the record does there exist a sworn to affidavit from McCabe claiming service of

appellee's summary judgment motion was not received.1 Therefore, absent sufficient

1.To the contrary, the record reflects that McCabe has been continuously served at a Warren County address throughout the proceedings below without any notification issues – the exact same address included in the certificate of service on appellee's summary judgment motion and in McCabe's pro se notice of appeal.

-3- Warren CA2025-01-003

evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service, McCabe has failed to establish that

the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to appellee. See, e.g., Edney v. Life

Ambulance Serv., Inc., 2012-Ohio-4305, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) ("[a]bsent sufficient evidence to

rebut the presumption of proper service and establish that he was not served with a copy

of appellees' motion for summary judgment, appellant has failed to establish that the

common pleas court erred by granting the motion for summary judgment").

{¶ 11} Accordingly, because McCabe has presented no evidence to rebut the

presumption of proper service, McCabe's single assignment of error lacks merit and is

overruled.

{¶ 12} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and SIEBERT, J., concur.

-4-