LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. Smith

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 17, 2026
• Docket: E-25-044
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. Smith, 2026-Ohio-1404.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY

LVNV Funding, LLC Court of Appeals No. {22}E-25-044

Appellee Trial Court No. CVF 2300715

v.

Shardaye Smith DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: April 17, 2026

*****

Shardaye Smith, pro se, appellant.

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant Shardaye Smith appeals the August 20, 2025 judgment of the

Sandusky Municipal Court, which adopted the magistrate’s decision denying Smith’s

Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. For the reasons that follow, the trial

court’s judgment is affirmed.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On April 25, 2023, appellee LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) filed a

complaint in the Sandusky Municipal Court seeking a judgment of $1,871.99 for Smith’s failure to pay her credit card account. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the

account statement addressed to Smith and “Bobbie J Delk” at 404 Fulton St., Sandusky

OH 44870. On April 28, 2023, service was sent by certified mail to 404 Fulton St. It

was signed for by “Bobbie” at that address.

{¶ 3} On May 18, 2023, Smith filed a “Notice of Special Appearance/Affidavit of

Fact” in which she contested jurisdiction, claiming, inter alia,

I, Shardaye Jeacole Malik Bey, am Consul/ Authorized Representative for (Ex. Rel. SHARDAYE J. SMITH, ens legis), I am Aboriginal and Indigenous to the North American Continent by birthright. In the spirit of Amity, Peace and Friendship I demand that there be no misunderstanding as to who I am, I am NOT the 14th fictitious corporate person, I am the Natural Person as emphasized in the case heading above. All Inalienable and Substantive Rights bestowed upon me by Nature’s God Allah, I invoke them and at no point do I consent to be in any jurisdiction other than in the jurisdiction of my Ancient Foremothers and Forefathers of the Moroccan Empire.

{¶ 4} On August 30, 2023, LVNV moved for summary judgment. Attached to its

motion was an affidavit of Pamela Jordan, who attested that she was an authorized

representative for LVNV who had personal knowledge of LVNV’s creation and

maintenance of its business records. Jordan authenticated Smith’s account statements

showing the balance due of $1,871.99. Further, Jordan stated that Smith’s account was

created by Synchrony Bank, which then transferred ownership of the account to LVNV.

Documents memorializing that transfer were attached to Jordan’s affidavit. Smith did not

respond to LVNV’s motion for summary judgment.

{¶ 5} On September 28, 2023, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor

of LVNV.

2. {¶ 6} Over a year later, on June 20, 2025, Smith moved for relief from the trial

court’s judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (5). She alleged that she did not

receive proper service of process in that the summons and complaint were sent to an

address where she did not reside, she did not sign for the certified mail, and she “was

unaware of the lawsuit until after judgment had been entered.” She further denied, in

general terms, the validity of the debt. On July 2, 2025, Smith filed an amendment to her

Civ.R. 60(B) motion, asserting a claim for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5) that her

due process rights were violated because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over

her at the time of the judgment.

{¶ 7} On July 23, 2025, the magistrate entered its decision denying Smith’s Civ.R.

60(B) motion. The magistrate found that Smith was properly served as evidenced by the

signed receipt for certified mail service. Further, the magistrate noted that Smith had

knowledge of the complaint as evidenced by her May 13, 2023 filing in which she

contested the jurisdiction of the court. In addition to the issue pertaining to service, the

magistrate also found that Smith’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion must fail because Smith did not

establish a meritorious defense and her motion was untimely filed more than a year after

the judgment.

{¶ 8} Smith filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, again asserting that she

was not properly served, and also maintaining that her Civ.R. 60(B) motion was timely.

Smith did not argue or present a meritorious defense to the underlying claim.

3. {¶ 9} LVNV opposed Smith’s objections, arguing that it properly served Smith in

accordance with the Rule of Civil Procedure, and Smith failed to rebut the presumption

that she received service. It cited Smith’s May 18, 2023 filing as evidence that Smith

was aware of the lawsuit and was willing to participate.

{¶ 10} On August 12, 2025, Smith filed her reply in support of her objections, to

which she attached an affidavit that authenticated utility bills showing her with a different

address in April 2023. She also filed a “Notice of Failure to Validate Debt,” in which she

alleged that she sent a written “Debt Validation Letter” to the attorneys representing

LVNV but has not received a response.

{¶ 11} On August 20, 2025, the trial court entered its judgment overruling Smith’s

objections and adopting the magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 12} Thereafter, Smith submitted four filings to the trial court. First was a

“Defendant’s Evidentiary Supplement Regarding Improper Service of Judgment Entry

Under Ohio Civ.R. 58(B)” in which she argued that she was not properly served with the

trial court’s August 20, 2025 judgment entry. Second, she filed a “Defendant’s Motion to

Clarify Service and Toll Time to Appeal,” again claiming that she was not properly

served with the August 20, 2025 judgment entry. In both of those filings, Smith admitted

that she received the judgment entry in her P.O. Box on August 21, 2025, but complained

that it did not contain a postmark or any indication of the mailing date. Third, she filed a

“Defendant’s Supplemental Notice to the Court Re: Continued Collection Activity and

Multiple Agencies” in which she argued that LVNV has continued its collection practices

4. despite still not responding to her Debt Validation Request. Finally, she filed a

“Defendant’s Motion For Refund of Improper Filing Fee,” in which she sought a refund

of the $50.00 fee for filing her objections to the magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 13} On September 19, 2025, Smith filed her notice of appeal of the trial court’s

August 20, 2025 judgment entry denying her Civ.R. 60(B) motion to dismiss.

{¶ 14} After her notice of appeal was filed, on September 22, 2025, the trial court

entered a judgment denying Smith’s motion for refund of filing fees and striking from the

record Smith’s “Defendant’s Evidentiary Supplement Regarding Improper Service of

Judgment Entry Under Ohio Civ.R. 58(B),” “Defendant’s Motion to Clarify Service and

Toll Time to Appeal,” and “Defendant’s Supplemental Notice to the Court Re:

Continued Collection Activity and Multiple Agencies.”

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 15} Smith, appearing pro se, now asserts four assignments of error for review:

1. The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion despite clear evidence of defective service and lack of jurisdiction.

2. The trial court acted without jurisdiction when striking filings after Appellant’s Notice of Appeal had been filed on September 19, 2025.

3. The trial court erred in considering unauthenticated business records not supported by proper affidavits or foundation.

4. Appellee violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) by continuing to collect on a disputed debt without providing validation.

5. III. Analysis

{¶ 16} Smith’s first and third assignments of error are related and will be

addressed together.

{¶ 17} In her first assignment of error, Smith asserts that the trial court erred when

it denied her Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. To be entitled to Civ.R.

60(B) relief, a movant must “‘demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or

claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is 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.”

Moore v. ThorWorks Industries, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1617, ¶ 91 (6th Dist.), quoting GTE

Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), paragraph two of

the syllabus. “If any of these three requirements is not met, the motion should be

overruled.” Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1988). “An appellate

court reviews a trial court’s denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for an abuse of discretion.”

ThorWorks at ¶ 91, citing Rose Chevrolet at 20.

{¶ 18} Smith argues that the trial court’s judgment was void because she was not

properly served with the complaint. Further, in her third assignment of error, she argues

that LVNV’s evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was

unauthenticated and inadmissible. Both arguments relate to the meritorious defense

prong of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Neither, however, have merit.

6. {¶ 19} First, Smith was served with the complaint by certified mail in accordance

with Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a) at the address listed on her credit account, “[e]videnced by

return receipt signed by any person accepting delivery.” “If a plaintiff follows the civil

rules in a given case, it is presumed that ‘service was proper unless the defendant rebuts

this presumption with sufficient evidence of nonservice.’” Griffin v. Braswell, 2010-

Ohio-1597, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), quoting Calvary Invests., L.L.C. v. Clevenger, 2005-Ohio-

7003, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.); Yost v. McNea, 2021-Ohio-2145, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 20} Smith has not rebutted the presumption of proper service. “When it comes

to service, the basic requirement is that the ‘notice [be] reasonably calculated, under all

the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford

them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Hunt v. Alderman, 2025-Ohio-2944, ¶

14, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). The

service in this case was reasonably calculated to inform Smith as it was sent to the

address listed on her credit account. Although she eventually submitted an affidavit and

utility bills listing a different address in April 2023, her affidavit contains the

demonstrable falsehood that she “first became aware of this lawsuit only after judgment

had already been entered against [her.]” The fact that she filed a motion contesting

jurisdiction three weeks after service of the complaint proves that she was aware of the

lawsuit. Smith, therefore, cannot demonstrate a meritorious defense of lack of service of

process.

7. {¶ 21} Turning to her bald claim that LVNV’s evidence in support of its motion

for summary judgment was unauthenticated and inadmissible, the record proves

otherwise. Attached to the motion for summary judgment was Pamela Jordan’s affidavit

in which she attested, inter alia:

I am an Authorized Representative for LVNV Funding LLC (hereafter the “Plaintiff”) and hereby certify as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s creation and maintenance of its normal business records, including computer records of its accounts receivable. These business records, including any records attached hereto as exhibits, are regularly and contemporaneously kept and maintained in the regular and normal course of Plaintiff’s business. . . .

...

6. I have personally reviewed all documents attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C, which are true and correct copies of relevant documents from the Plaintiff’s business records on the Account. Exhibit A: Transaction History Exhibit B: Seller Data Document and Chain of Title Exhibit C: Terms and Conditions.

The attached exhibits show Smith’s account and the past due balance and the transfer of

the account to LVNV. Smith, therefore, has not demonstrated a meritorious defense to

the underlying claim that she failed to pay her credit account.

{¶ 22} In addition to failing to demonstrate a meritorious defense, Smith has not

demonstrated grounds for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5), nor has she satisfied

the requirement that her motion be timely filed as it was submitted approximately 21

months after summary judgment was entered against her. She therefore has failed to

8. satisfy any of the prongs under GTE Automatic for relief pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). The

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied her motion.

{¶ 23} Alternatively, Smith argues under her first assignment of error that the trial

court’s judgment is void for lack of service. Notably, she refers to service of the August

20, 2025 judgment entry, not to service of the complaint in the underlying collection

action.

{¶ 24} Smith maintains that the trial court violated Civ.R. 58(B), which provides,

When the court signs a judgment, the court shall endorse thereon a direction to the clerk to serve upon all parties not in default for failure to appear notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Within three days of entering the judgment upon the journal, the clerk shall serve the parties in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B) and note the service in the appearance docket. Upon serving the notice and notation of the service in the appearance docket, the service is complete. The failure of the clerk to serve notice does not affect the validity of the judgment or the running of the time for appeal except as provided in App.R. 4(A).

Specifically, she argues that the August 20, 2025 judgment entry was mailed without a

canceled stamp or postmark and that there is no docket notation of service.

{¶ 25} Assuming for purposes of this appeal only that the trial court failed to

comply with Civ.R. 58(B), Smith cannot demonstrate reversible error. “It is fundamental

that, to demonstrate reversible error on appeal, Appellants must not only demonstrate

error by the trial court but they must also demonstrate that they were materially

prejudiced by that error.” Graves Lumber Co. v. Croft, 2014-Ohio-4324, ¶ 54 (9th Dist.).

Smith has not been prejudiced. As described in Civ.R. 58(B), any failure in the technical

procedure of service does not affect the validity of the judgment. Furthermore, the

9. judgment was delivered and received by Smith the day after it was entered and she timely

filed her notice of appeal.

{¶ 26} Accordingly, Smith’s first and third assignments of error are not well-

taken.

{¶ 27} In her second assignment of error, Smith argues that the trial court erred

when it entered its September 22, 2025 judgment striking her filings after she filed her

notice of appeal on September 19, 2025. She contends that her notice of appeal deprived

the trial court of jurisdiction to act.

{¶ 28} Smith, however, did not amend her notice of appeal to include the

September 22, 2025 judgment. It, therefore, is not properly before the court. See

Dickman v. Johnson, 2025-Ohio-4349, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.) (“The scope of an appeal is

determined by the designation contained within the notice of appeal, filed pursuant to

App.R. 3(A).”); App.R. 3(D) (“The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties

taking the appeal; shall designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealed from; and

shall name the court to which the appeal is taken.”).

{¶ 29} Accordingly, her second assignment of error is not well-taken.

{¶ 30} Finally, in her fourth assignment of error, Smith argues that LVNV violated

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) by continuing to collect on the debt without providing validation.

Smith did not raise this as a counter-claim in the trial court and it is not relevant to the

trial court’s denial of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion that is before this court on appeal.

{¶ 31} Smith’s fourth assignment of error is not well-taken.

10. IV. Conclusion

{¶ 32} For the foregoing reasons, this court finds that substantial justice has been

done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Sandusky Municipal Court is

affirmed. Smith is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, J. ____________________________ Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE CONCUR. ____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

11.