Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones

Ohio Court of Appeals

Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones

DecidedApril 24, 2026

DocketC-250521

StatusPublished

This text of Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones (Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones) 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.

Bluebook

Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-1482.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., : APPEAL NO. C-250521 TRIAL NO. 23CV23501 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY DAJUAN HENRY JONES, :

Defendant-Appellee, :

and :

ANTWOINE JENKINS, :

Defendant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 4/24/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-1482.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., : APPEAL NO. C-250521 TRIAL NO. 23CV23501 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

vs. : OPINION DAJUAN HENRY JONES, :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 24, 2026

Kiefer Peters and Daran P. Kiefer, for Plaintiff-Appellant,

Dajuan Henry Jones, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Judge.

{¶1} This appeal presents the question of whether the trial court properly set

aside a default judgment entered against defendant-appellee Dajuan Henry Jones.

Plaintiff-appellant Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (“SMIC”) appeals from the

trial court’s entry setting aside the default judgment. Raising three assignments of

error, SMIC argues that the trial court erred in setting aside the default judgment

where Jones failed to provide an affidavit contradicting proper service and filed the

motion to set aside more than one year after judgment was entered and where the trial

court lacked any evidence to support its decision to set aside the judgment. For the

reasons that follow, we sustain the assignments of error, reverse the trial court’s

judgment setting aside the default judgment, and remand the cause for the trial court

to deny Jones’s motion under Civ.R. 60(B) as untimely and to hold an evidentiary

hearing on Jones’s assertions that service was improper.

I. Background

{¶2} On October 20, 2023, SMIC filed a complaint against Jones and

defendant Antwoine Jenkins.1 The complaint alleged that, on or about May 13, 2022,

SMIC was the insurer and subrogee of Tracy Braswell (“the insured”) and that, on that

day, Jones “negligently operated a motor vehicle” owned by Jenkins by failing to

control the vehicle and “striking” the insured’s “legally parked vehicle.” As a result of

the accident, the insured sustained damages in the amount of $12,107.71, $11,607.71

of which SMIC paid to the insured pursuant to her property-damage coverage and

$500 of which became out-of-pocket loss for the insured.

{¶3} The complaint listed Jones’s address as “701 Stonelick Woods Dr.

1 Default judgment was separately granted against Jenkins on February 9, 2024.

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Batavia, OH 45103.” The docket reflects that certified mail service of the summons

and complaint was delivered to “Dajuan Jones” on October 25, 2023, at “701 Stonelick

Woods.” The summons informed Jones that the complaint would be taken as true and

default judgment would be rendered against him unless he served plaintiff with a

written answer to the complaint within 28 days after he received the summons.

{¶4} On December 4, 2023, SMIC filed a motion for a default judgment

against Jones. SMIC’s counsel averred in an attached affidavit that Jones was properly

served but never filed an answer or contacted counsel for an extension of time to move

or plead. The trial court granted SMIC’s motion for a default judgment the following

day, rendering judgment in SMIC’s favor in the amount of $12,107.71.

{¶5} On July 3, 2025, Jones filed a motion “pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 60(B)

to vacate the default judgment entered” against him. The motion claimed that he “was

not properly served” and did not “become aware of the existence” of the action or the

default judgment “until on or around February 9, 2024.” The motion further asserted

that he has a meritorious defense to the action as he “has already proven in court,

through a separate trial, that Defendant was not responsible for the motor vehicle

accident at issue in this case.” He continued, “Furthermore, Defendant was a victim

of identity theft in connection with the incident that gave rise to this lawsuit.” Jones

asserted that he “promptly” filed the motion after he learned of the default judgment.

Attached to his response was a copy of a “Not Guilty Verdict,” in the case numbered

23/TRD/11750/B. The entry lists “Dajuan Jones” as the defendant and shows that a

jury found Jones “Not Guilty for Failure to Stop After Accident in violation of Ohio

Revised Code 4549.02.”

{¶6} SMIC responded to the motion and argued that the motion should be

denied where Jones “signed for certified mail service, failed to present any evidence

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

regarding service or to undo the judgment, and the motion was ‘untimely’ as a matter

of law.”

{¶7} Jones filed a reply in support of his motion and asserted that SMIC

“repeatedly” identifies him as “Dejuan Jones,” which is not his legal name and

indicates “misidentification.” He claimed that SMIC “based their identification” on

“an expired Ohio identification card that expired on January 12, 2022.” However, at

the time of the accident, he held a valid “Ohio driver’s license issued on February 3,

2021.” He asserted that SMIC “made no reasonable effort to verify the identity of the

party involved in the accident.” He additionally asserted that he was at work the day

of the accident and did not have any involvement. He further asserted that the address

used in the complaint was not his residence “at the time.” He argued, “The repeated

misspelling of Defendant’s name and reliance on invalid identification shows that

[SMIC] has pursued legal action against the wrong individual.” Attached to his

response was a copy of an Ohio driver’s license with the name, “Dajuan Henry Jones,

Sr.” The license was issued on February 3, 2021, and lists an address at 1822 Emerson

Avenue in Cincinnati.

{¶8} On September 5, 2025, the trial court granted Jones’s “Motion to Set

Aside” the default judgment, without explaining its rationale. SMIC now appeals,

raising three assignments of error for this court’s review.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶9} In the first assignment of error, SMIC argues that the trial court erred

in granting the Civ.R. 60(B) motion “or other challenge to service” where Jones failed

to file an affidavit contesting the presumption of proper service.

{¶10} In the second assignment of error, SMIC argues that the trial court erred

in granting the Civ.R. 60(B) motion where the decision lacks evidentiary support.

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI