[Cite as Versa-Pak, Ltd. v. Sispack Corp., 2025-Ohio-5462.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY
VERSA-PAK LTD., CASE NO. 10-25-10 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
SISPACK CORP., OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APELLANT.
Appeal from Mercer County Common Pleas Court Civil Division Trial Court No. 20-CIV-069
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 8, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Steven Diller for Appellant
Christopher J. Ellington for Appellee Case No. 10-25-10
WALDICK, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Sispack Corp. (“Sispack”), appeals the April 1,
2025 judgment of the Mercer County Common Pleas Court denying a motion to
vacate the default judgment that had previously been entered in the trial court
against Sispack and in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Versa-Pak, Ltd. (“Versa-Pak”).
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Procedural History and Relevant Facts
{¶2} This case originated on September 22, 2020, when Versa-Pak filed a
complaint for money damages against Sispack in the trial court. The complaint
alleged that Versa-Pak is a limited liability company organized to do business in the
State of Ohio, with its principal office in Mercer County. The complaint alleged
that Sispack is a corporation organized in the State of North Carolina, that Sispack
had conducted business with Versa-Pak in the State of Ohio, and that Sispack had
failed to pay Versa-Pak for materials and products purchased on account. The first
claim for relief alleged that Sispack owed $70,437.29 to Versa-Pak upon account.
A second claim for relief alleged the same background facts and asserted that
Sispack had breached an oral contract to pay for items purchased and received from
Versa-Pak and that Versa-Pak had been damaged by Sispack’s breach of contract in
the amount of $70,437.29. A third claim for relief asserted, on the basis of the same
alleged facts, that Sispack had been unjustly enriched in the amount of $70,437.29
-2- Case No. 10-25-10
as a result of Sispack’s failure to pay for materials and products purchased from
Versa-Pak. On those bases, Versa-Pak demanded judgment against Sispack in the
sum of $70,437.29, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
{¶3} An initial attempt at service of the complaint and summons by certified
mail at Sispack’s U.S. Post Office box in Denver, North Carolina was unsuccessful.1
On November 19, 2020, a second attempt at service by certified mail was requested
by Versa-Pak, addressed in care of Jeffery Sisterhen, the owner and agent of
Sispack, to be delivered at Sisterhen’s home located at 3527 Governors Island Drive
in Denver, North Carolina. On November 30, 2020, a certified mail return receipt,
commonly referred to as a “green card”, was received by the trial court from the
U.S. Postal Service. That green card noted a date of delivery of November 23rd
with “C19” written in the signature portion of the green card, and a further notation,
“DSPR6”, written in the portion of the card labeled “Received by (Printed Name)”.
{¶4} After Sispack failed to respond to the complaint within twenty-eight
days of November 23, 2020, Versa-Pak filed a motion for default judgment on
December 30, 2020. On January 13, 2020, Versa-Pak filed the affidavit of Andrea
Green, Chief Strategy Officer of Versa-Pak. That affidavit averred that, following
a credit of $1,106.00 given to Sispack by Versa-Pak since the filing of the complaint,
Sispack continued to owe Versa-Pak the sum of $69,331.29.
1 On December 29, 2020, the trial court received notice from the U.S. Postal Service that the initial set of documents sent by certified mail to Sispack’s post office box went unclaimed.
-3- Case No. 10-25-10
{¶5} On January 14, 2021, the trial court filed a judgment entry granting
default judgment in favor of Versa-Pak. In that judgment entry, the trial court found
that all necessary parties were properly before the court, with Sispack having been
served with summons and a copy of the complaint. Based on Sispack’s failure to
answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, the trial court found the allegations
contained in the complaint to be true and, taking into account the $1,106.00 credit
having been given Sispack, the trial court found Versa-Pak was entitled to a finding
of default on account in the amount of $69,331.29 and granted judgment against
Sispack in that amount.
{¶6} On May 11, 2021, following a request filed by Versa-Pak on May 10,
2021, the trial court issued an order of garnishment for funds in a bank account
owned by Sispack with Branch Banking & Trust (“BB&T”).
{¶7} On June 7, 2021, Sisterhen filed a request for a hearing, disputing the
garnishment order. In that request, Sisterhen alleged that he was never served any
summons relating to the lawsuit and that he only became aware of the case when he
received the judgment in the mail.
{¶8} On June 11, 2021, as a result of Sisterhen’s request for a hearing, the
trial court assigned the garnishment matter for hearing on July 12, 2021. The
assignment notice filed by the trial court on June 11, 2021 ordered that counsel and
Sisterhen appear for the hearing on July 12, 2021.
-4- Case No. 10-25-10
{¶9} On July 14, 2021, the trial court filed a judgment entry continuing the
garnishment hearing. That judgment entry reflected that Sispack had failed to
appear at the July 12, 2021 hearing and, further, that the garnishee had not filed an
answer to the garnishment. The judgment entry noted that, upon representation by
Versa-Pak’s counsel, the garnishee was processing the garnishment and an answer
was forthcoming. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that the garnishment hearing
be continued until August 16, 2021.
{¶10} On July 26, 2021, the bank filed an answer and deposited with the trial
court a check in the amount of $6,562.16.
{¶11} On August 23, 2021, the trial court filed a judgment entry ordering
that the garnishment proceeds of $6,562.16 received from Sispack via Branch
Banking & Trust be disbursed to Versa-Pak, less poundage and court costs.
{¶12} On February 11, 2022, Versa-Pak filed a motion requesting the trial
court issue an order requiring Sisterhen to appear and show cause why he should
not be held in contempt for violating the court’s garnishment order. The contempt
motion was based on the allegation that on May 14, 2021, after Sisterhen had
received the trial court’s garnishment order, but prior to the bank receiving it,
$76,000.00 had been transferred from Sispack’s BB&T bank account into a different
account owned by Sisterhen and his wife, Dara Sisterhen, leaving just $6,500.00,
-5- Case No. 10-25-10
approximately, in the Sispack bank account that was subject to the garnishment
order.
{¶13} On February 16, 2022, the trial court filed a judgment entry ordering
that Sisterhen, as the agent of Sispack, appear before the trial court on March 15,
2022 and show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court. The
trial court ordered that the clerk serve that order on Sisterhen by certified mail at
3527 Governors Island Drive, in Denver, North Carolina.
{¶14} On February 23, 2022, the trial court filed a tracking report from the
U.S. Postal Service, reflecting that the trial court’s show cause order and related
documents had been delivered on February 19, 2022 at 3527 Governors Island
Drive. However, on March 15, 2022, Sisterhen did not appear as ordered at the
show cause hearing.
{¶15} On March 23, 2022, Versa-Pak filed a motion in contempt, asserting
that Sisterhen was in contempt of court for failing to appear at the show cause
hearing as ordered, and requesting that the trial court find Sisterhen in contempt of
court and issue a bench warrant for his arrest.
{¶16} On March 24, 2022, the trial court filed a judgment entry finding
Sisterhen in contempt of court and ordering that a warrant be issued for his arrest.
{¶17} On October 14, 2022, Sispack filed a motion to vacate the default
judgment entered by the trial court on January 14, 2021. That motion further
-6- Case No. 10-25-10
requested that the previously garnished funds be returned to Sispack, and asked that
the bench warrant issued against Sisterhen be withdrawn. The memorandum filed
in support of the motion argued that the default judgment should be vacated due to
lack of personal jurisdiction over Sispack, based on the claim that Sisternhen had
not received notice of the lawsuit and only became aware of it when he received a
copy of the judgment.
{¶18} On June 9, 2023, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on
Sispack’s motion to vacate judgment. At the hearing, Sisterhen and his wife
testified that they were both in Tennessee visiting family during the week of
November 23, 2020, the date on which the certified mail return receipt issued by the
U.S. Postal Service indicated that the complaint and summons had been delivered
at Sisterhen’s home at 3527 Governors Island Drive in Denver, North Carolina.
Sisterhen and his wife further testified that neither of them ever received the
certified mail delivery from Versa-Pak in the mail at their residence, and that no
other persons lived at their residence or would have been there to receive mail in the
Sisterhens’ absence.
{¶19} On April 1, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying
Sispack’s motion to vacate the default judgment. In that decision, the trial court
found that the certified mail return receipt dated November 23, 2020 created a
rebuttable presumption that the complaint had been received by someone at
-7- Case No. 10-25-10
Sisterhen’s residence on that date. The trial court also found that the testimony
given by Sisterhen and his wife at the June 9, 2023 hearing was not credible and
that Sispack had therefore failed to rebut the presumption of proper service.
{¶20} On April 30, 2025, Sispack filed the instant appeal, in which two
assignments of error are raised.
First Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in finding that as a matter of the facts and law valid service was obtained upon the Defendant-Appellant.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in failing to order the return of the garnished funds to the Defendant-Appellant.
{¶21} As the two assignments of error raised by Sispack are based on the
same claim that the trial court erred in denying Sispack’s motion to vacate the
default judgment entered against it, we shall jointly address the two assignments of
error.
{¶22} In support of both assignments of error, Sispack argues that the default
judgment entered against it should have been vacated by the trial court due to the
lack of valid service of the complaint in this case. Sispack’s position is that the
default judgment was, and is, void ab initio because the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over Sispack. More specifically, Sispack argues the trial court lacked
jurisdiction over it because service of the summons and complaint by certified mail
-8- Case No. 10-25-10
on the corporation’s agent, Jeffery Sisterhen, was defective. Sispack asserts that the
record fails to establish that the summons and complaint were actually delivered to
Sisterhen at his home address.
{¶23} Generally, an appellate court reviews the denial of a motion to vacate
a void judgment under an abuse of discretion standard, but a trial court’s
determination of whether personal jurisdiction over a party exists is reviewed under
a de novo standard of review. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-
887, ¶¶ 6-8 (3d Dist.). However, a reviewing court will not disturb a trial court’s
finding regarding whether service was proper unless the trial court abused its
discretion. Id., at ¶ 8.
{¶24} Relief from judgment in civil cases is typically sought pursuant to
Civ.R. 60. However, in addition to the grounds for relief prescribed by Civ.R. 60,
Ohio courts possess the inherent power to vacate a judgment that was void ab initio.
Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988). Where service of process has not been
accomplished, any judgment is void ab initio. Hoffman v. New Life Fitness Centers,
Inc., 116 Ohio App. 3d 737, 739 (3d Dist. 1996). “When service is not properly
made under Civ.R. 4 to 4.6, the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant who
was not properly served; consequently, any judgment issued against that defendant
is void.” Treasurer of Lucas Cty. v. Mt. Airy Investments Ltd., 2019-Ohio-3932, ¶
12 (6th Dist.).
-9- Case No. 10-25-10
{¶25} As this Court explained in Progressive Direct Ins. Co., supra, when
presented with a claim similar to that raised in the instant case:
“‘The plaintiff bears the burden of obtaining proper service on a defendant.’” Britton [v. Britton, 2019-Ohio-2179,] at ¶ 14, quoting Beaver [v. Beaver, 2018-Ohio-4460,] at ¶ 9. A rebuttable presumption “‘of proper service arises when the record reflects that a party has followed the Civil Rules pertaining to service of process.’” Bader v. Ferri, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-01, 2013-Ohio- 3074, 2013 WL 3776546, ¶ 20, quoting Poorman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 01CA16, 2002 WL 398721, *2, citing Potter v. Troy, 78 Ohio App.3d 372, 377, 604 N.E.2d 828 (2d Dist.1992).
“To rebut the presumption of proper service, ‘“the other party must produce evidentiary-quality information demonstrating that he or she did not receive service.”’” Britton at ¶ 15, quoting Hendrickson at ¶ 32, quoting McWilliams v. Schumacher, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 98188, 98288, 98390 and 98423, 2013-Ohio-29, 2013 WL 118918, ¶ 51. “In determining whether a defendant has sufficiently rebutted the presumption of valid service, the trial court may assess the credibility and competency of the submitted evidence of non-service.” TCC Mgt., Inc., 2005-Ohio-4357, at ¶ 15 [(10th Dist.)]. Generally, “‘[a] trial court is not required to give preclusive effect to a movant’s sworn statement that [the movant] did not receive service of process when the record contains no other indication that service was ineffectual.’” Britton at ¶ 15, quoting TCC Mgt., Inc. at ¶ 15.
Id., at ¶¶ 10-11.
{¶26} Ohio’s Civ.R. 4.3 permits out-of-state service of process on non-
resident defendants in causes of action arising from several enumerated
circumstances, including a nonresident’s “[t]ransacting any business in this state.”
Civ.R. 4.3(A)(1). Pursuant to Civ.R. 4.3(B)(1), “[t]he clerk may make service of
-10- Case No. 10-25-10
process or other documents to be served outside the state in the same manner as
provided in Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1) through Civ.R. 4.1(A)(3).”
{¶27} The version of Civ.R. 4.1 in effect at all times relevant to this case
provided in pertinent part:
(A) Service by Clerk.
(1) Methods of Service.
(a) Service by United States Certified or Express Mail. 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 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.
{¶28} Under Civ.R. 4.1(A), service of process via certified mail is evidenced
by a return receipt signed by any person, and “‘Civ.R. 4.1(A) does not require that
delivery is restricted to the defendant or to a person authorized to receive service of
process on the defendant’s behalf.’” Progressive Direct Ins. Co., supra, quoting
TCC Mgt., Inc. v. Clapp, 2005-Ohio-4357, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.). See also CUC
Properties VI, LLC v. Smartlink Ventures, Inc., 2021-Ohio-3428, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.)
(“The ‘any person’ language in Civ.R. 4.1 is not limited to the defendant or its
agents, but is a flexible concept construed broadly.”).
-11- Case No. 10-25-10
{¶29} “‘When service is attempted by certified mail, a signed receipt
returned to the sender establishes a prima facie case of delivery to the
addressee.’” Progressive Direct Ins. Co., at ¶ 12, quoting TCC Mgt., Inc., at ¶ 11,
citing New Co-Operative Co. v. Liquor Control Com’n., 2002-Ohio-2244, ¶ 8 (10th
Dist.). “‘Valid service of process is presumed when any person at the defendant’s
address received the certified mail envelope, whether or not the recipient is the
defendant’s agent.’” Id. Compliance with the foregoing rules creates a rebuttable
presumption of proper service. State Auto Ins. of Ohio v. Wilson, 2020-Ohio-4456,
¶ 7 (9th Dist.).
{¶30} As reflected by several Ohio appellate court decisions, review of the
adequacy of service of process via certified mail was complicated by the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. In response to the pandemic, “the United
States Postal Service (“USPS”) ‘modified mail procedures for services that
normally required carriers to venture in close proximity to customers.’” Progressive
Direct Ins. Co., at ¶ 13, quoting CUC Properties, at ¶ 3. “‘In lieu of face-to-face
signatures, USPS instructed its carriers to maintain a safe distance, ask the recipient
for their first initial and last name, enter that information on the return receipt, and
then have the customer step back while the employee placed the mail in an
appropriate place.’” Id. See also Finnell v. Eppens, S.D. Ohio No. 1:20-cv-337,
2021 WL 2280656 (June 4, 2021) (explaining that in response to the pandemic the
-12- Case No. 10-25-10
postal service adopted a signature policy for certified mail in which “the USPS
instructed its delivery personnel to ensure that someone was at the address to receive
the letter, to ask that person for their name, and to then leave the letter where the
person could get it” and then the mail carrier would complete the return receipt).
{¶31} In one decision on the issue, the First District Court of Appeals
concluded that a designation such as “Covid 19” or “C19” on a certified mail return
receipt signature line was insufficient to establish valid service under Civ.R.
4.1(A). Cuc Properties VI, L.L.C. v. Smartlink Ventures, Inc., 2021-Ohio-3428, ¶
15 (1st Dist.). Similarly, in In re Adoption of M.J.A., 2022-Ohio-3275 (12th Dist.),
the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision vacating an
adoption decree where the child’s biological mother averred she did not receive
notice of the adoption petition and the certified mail return receipt contained only a
squiggly line directly above a “C-19” notation.
{¶32} In Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-887 (3d Dist.),
this Court reversed a denial of a motion to vacate judgment where the defendant
averred in an affidavit that he did not did not receive the complaint and the certified
mail return receipt for the complaint had “C19” on the signature line. However, our
reversal in that case was based solely on the fact that the trial court failed to hold a
hearing on the defendant’s motion prior to overruling it. Specifically, we found
that “Williams’s sworn statement along with the certified-mail receipt marked ‘C19’
-13- Case No. 10-25-10
is sufficient evidence to merit a hearing during which the trial court can more fully
explore whether the plaintiffs met their burden of showing whether proper service
occurred in this case and, if so, whether Williams can rebut the presumption that he
was properly served.” Id., at ¶ 18.
{¶33} In the instant case, as previously noted, the record reflects that Versa-
Pak attempted service on Sispack at Sisterhen’s home address via certified mail on
November 19, 2020, and that a certified mail return receipt was received by the trial
court on November 30, 2020. The certified mail return receipt reflected a date of
delivery of November 23rd with “C19” written in the signature portion of the green
card, and a further notation, “DSPR6”, written in the portion of the card labeled
“Received by (Printed Name)”.
{¶34} Relying upon Cuc Properties VI, L.L.C., supra, in combination with
the testimony of Sisterhen and his wife that the certified mail was not received by
them at their home, Sispack argues that the trial court erred in finding that valid
service on Sispack had been made in this case. We disagree.
{¶35} We find the facts of the instant case to be distinguishable from those
in Cuc Properties VI, L.L.C., supra, upon which Sispack relies. While the certified
mail return receipt in this case did contain the notation of “C19” in the signature
portion of the receipt, which was found to be insufficient compliance with Civ.R.
4.1 in Cuc Properties VI, L.L.C., the portion of the receipt labeled “Received by
-14- Case No. 10-25-10
(Printed Name)” in the case before us also contained a handwritten notation of
“DSPR6”. There is nothing in the record of this case establishing that the “DSPR6”
signature on the return receipt was made by the postal carrier and, while the
“DSPR6” is somewhat cryptic, the record established that “DS” are the initials of
Sisterhen’s wife, who resided at the address in question, and therefore the receipt
provided an indication of who received the delivery.
{¶36} Additionally, among the evidence presented at the June 9, 2023
hearing on Sispack’s motion to vacate judgment was Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8, a printout
from the U.S. Postal Service’s tracking service, with a tracking number matching
that of the package of documents sent via certified mail to Sisterhen at his home
address. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 reflects that the documents in question were
“[d]elivered, [l]eft with individual” at 4:41 p.m. on November 23, 2020.
{¶37} We find the above facts to be more akin to those in Cincinnati Ins. Co.
v. Hall, 2022-Ohio-1112 (2d Dist.), in which the Second District Court of Appeals
found that the trial court had erred in finding invalid service of process. Id., at ¶ 3.
In Cincinnati Ins. Co., an electronic return receipt indicated the certified mail
containing the summons and complaint was delivered and left with an
individual. Id., at ¶ 5. The signature line on the return receipt “contain[ed] illegible
letters but ha[d] been completed,” and the address line “contain[ed] illegible
markings that appear[ed] to begin with the number ‘10’ followed by the letter
-15- Case No. 10-25-10
‘B.’” Id. The Second District noted that valid service by certified mail does not
require a signature from a defendant or an authorized agent, and that valid service
is presumed when any person at the defendant’s address signs the return
receipt. Id., at ¶ 15. The appellate court found no evidence to suggest the illegible
signature was made by the mail carrier. Id. at ¶ 21. Therefore, the Second District
concluded the return receipt was minimally sufficient on its face to create a
rebuttable presumption of valid service. Id., at ¶ 22.
{¶38} In the instant case, we also note that it is undisputed that Sisterhen and
his wife resided at the address where delivery was indicated by the postal service to
have been made. Additionally, the November 19, 2020 request by Versa-Pak for
service by certified mail contained fully accurate information with regard to
Sisterhen’s name and address, as did the certified mail return receipt.
{¶39} While the Sisterhens testified that they had been out of town on
November 23, 2020, and that no other persons were present at their residence on
that date who could have received the delivery, the trial court specifically found that
the testimony given by Sisterhen and his wife was not credible. While that finding
relating to credibility is well within the discretion of the trial court, the record
supports the trial court’s determination that the Sisterhens lacked credibility.
{¶40} In summary, based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case,
and bearing in mind the “flexible” concept of the “any person” language of Civ.R.
-16- Case No. 10-25-10
4.1, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Versa-Pak had met its
burden in establishing a prima facie case of delivery to the addressee, nor did the
trial court err in determining that Sispack had not rebutted the presumption that it
had been validly served. For those reasons, the trial court did not err in denying
Sispack’s motion to vacate the default judgment and subsequent garnishment.
{¶41} The two assignments of error are overruled.
Conclusion
{¶42} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant in the
particulars assigned and argued, the judgment entered in the Mercer County Court
of Common Pleas is affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
-17- Case No. 10-25-10
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error
are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
Juergen A. Waldick, Judge
William R. Zimmerman, Judge
John R. Willamowski, Judge
DATED: /jlm
-18-