Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. New, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2001)
This text of Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. New, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2001) (Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. New, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
New filed an answer to the complaint. On March 1, 2001, Motorists Insurance moved for a default judgment against Ward and attached proof of its damages. On March 7, 2001, the trial court entered a default judgment for approximately two thousand nine hundred dollars against Ward.1
Ward appeals. Although Ward's brief does not contain assignments of error as required by App.R. 16, he filed the following "assignment of error" with his notice of appeal:
If I had received a notice to appear in court I would have been there with * * * witnesses on my behalf. I did not know anything about a court date until I received the letter against me and I took it down to the courts and they showed me that someone else got my letter, but I did not. Therefor (sic) I [feel] that I should get my day in court to defend myself on this matter.
We will not reverse a trial court's decision to enter a default judgment absent an abuse of discretion. Huffer v. Cicero (1995),
A "court lacks jurisdiction to enter judgment against a defendant where effective service of process has not been made upon the defendant and the defendant has not appeared in the case or otherwise waived service." RiteRug Co., Inc. v. Wilson (1995),
Ward fails to argue that he did not receive proper service of the complaint and summons;2 rather, he argues that he did not receive notice of a court date when he could prove that he did not own the motor vehicle at issue. Until Ward filed an answer to the complaint denying the allegations, there were no issues to be tried.
We find that the trial court did not act in an unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary manner in granting Motorists Insurance's motion for default judgment because although Motorists Insurance properly served Ward with the complaint and summons, Ward never filed an answer or otherwise appeared in the case. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note, however, that if Ward wishes to file a motion to set aside the default judgment he may do so pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B).
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Gallipolis Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. and Harsha, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. New, Unpublished Decision (12-27-2001), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motorists-mutual-insurance-co-v-new-unpublished-decision-12-27-2001-ohioctapp-2001.