DOLLAHAN v. JSI STEEL DISTRIBUTION FABRICATION INC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Russell Dollahan (“Russell”) appeals the trial court's denial of his Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 24, 2023, JSI Steel Distribution & Fabrication, Inc., (“JSI”) filed a complaint against Russell and 4D MFG LLC ¹ (“4D MFG,” and Russell and 4D MFG together, “Defendants”) alleging “Defendant(s) were doing business with [JSI] by purchasing numerous materials and products for Defendant's business operations” and “Defendant has incurred an outstanding balance” of $28,366.53.² Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 9-10. It alleged that its counsel “sent Defendants notice of collection letters via First-Class Mail and electronic mail.” Id. at 10.³ JSI alleged that Defendants’ actions of accepting goods without the intention of paying constituted the civil tort of conversion and that it was entitled to treble damages pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-24-3-1. JSI's counsel signed a Certificate of Service attached to the complaint stating that the complaint was served upon 4D MFG and Russell at 520 E. 625 S., North Judson, Indiana 46366. An entry in the chronological case summary (“CCS”) on March 3, 2023, states “Complaint and Summons issued to defendants certified by mail.” Id. at 3. On March 9, 2023, Evelyn Dollahan (“Evelyn”) signed two return of service receipts for certified mail, one addressed to Russell and the other addressed to 4D MFG.⁴

[3] On April 21, 2023, JSI filed a motion for default judgment arguing the complaint and summons were served by certified mail on March 9, 2023, Defendants failed to file an answer, the court set the matter for hearing on April 21, 2023, and Defendants failed to appear for the hearing. On April 24, 2023, the court issued a Default Judgment Order against Defendants ordering them to pay JSI $85,099.59 in damages, $950 in attorney fees, court costs, and interest beginning thirty days after the entry of judgment.

[4] On September 25, 2023, JSI filed a Motion for Proceeding Supplemental. On January 8, 2024, Russell filed a “Verified Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment.” Id. at 55. The motion stated: “On March 9, 2023, Evelyn Dollahan, Russell's Mother, received and acknowledged the certified mail at her home at 520 E. 625 South, North Judson, Indiana 46366.” Id. It alleged that, “[a]t no time did Evelyn Dollahan deliver the Summons and Complaint to Russell Dollahan.” Id. In a memorandum, Russell argued that “[n]othing in [JSI's] Complaint or Summons indicates that service on Russell Dollahan's Mother conforms to Trial Rule 4.1” and “[s]ince service on Russell Dollahan is defective the judgment is void and must be set aside.”⁵ Id. at 64.

[5] Russell filed an affidavit in support of his motion to set aside stating “[m]y Mother lives alone on the real estate located at 520 E. 625 South, North Judson, Starke County, Indiana,” “I am the only person who picks up mail from the mail box because my Mother Evelyn ․ is very frail, has difficulty walking at [sic] remembering,” and “[a]t no time was a Summons or Complaint regarding JSl's lawsuit delivered to the mail box.” Id. at 75. The affidavit also stated: “Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is Exhibit 5 showing the location of my Mother's house, the 4D Manufacturing buildings, and the only mail box on the 520 E. 625 South, North Judson, Starke County, Indiana real estate.” Id. The aerial photograph marked as Exhibit 6 depicts a house labeled “Mother's Home” near the southwest corner of the property, a larger structure labeled “4D Manufacturing” located to the northeast of the house, and a location marked “Mail box” across the street from the house. See id. at 78.

[6] JSI filed an objection arguing that “Defendant(s) have continued to hold themselves out as an active business at all times with the sole exception being Defendant's Verified Motion to Set Aside Void Judg[ ]ment,” and “Defendant(s) website, www.fourdmfg.com, and Facebook page both active and recently updated list their address as 0520 E 625 S, North Judson, IN 46366. (See Website attached hereto and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit A.” Id. at 80. JSI argues that its “service upon Defendant was proper and complied with the service requirements of Indiana Trial Rule 4, specifically Ind. Tr. R.4(A)(1).” Id.

[7] On February 26, 2024, the court held a hearing. The court asked if 4D MFG was still operational, and Russell's counsel stated “it is Russell doing business as 4D” and “[i]t is him doing business as, it is an assumed business name.” Transcript Volume II at 11. Russell's counsel argued that Russell was not personally served. The court asked “[i]s his place of business, 4D MFG, LLC,” and Russell's counsel answered “[i]t is in the outbuildings of the farm ․ we have drawn a map to show where the house is, where his mother lives, and where the outbuildings are.” Id. at 12. The court asked “that is what address,” Russell's counsel stated “the house where Evelyn lives,” the court asked “[w]hich is what address,” and counsel replied “520 East 625 South, North Judson, Indiana.” Id. The court asked “that is where the business of 4D MFG LLC takes place,” and Russell's counsel replied “[o]n that real estate, yes.” Id.

[8] On May 24, 2024, the trial court issued an order denying Russell's motion to set aside default judgment. The court found that Russell was properly served under Ind. Trial Rule 4.1 “with a certified mailing to his place of business or employment with return receipt requested and returned showing receipt of the letter.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 87. Russell filed a motion to correct error, and the court denied the motion.

Discussion

[9] Russell argues “it is unambiguous that [he] was not served in person and service was not served at a residence or usual place of abode and/or the usual place of business or employment” and “[t]he outbuilding is clearly not at [his] mother's address and [he] did not in any way hold out his mother out as his agent for personal service purposes.” Appellant's Brief at 8-9. He asserts he “was not individually served in any capacity because 4D does not have a ‘place of business’ any longer.” Id. at 10. He claims “[t]here are two (2) defendants and two (2) judgments in this case,” “[t]here are also two (2) places,” “[o]ne place is Evelyn's home,” “[t]he other place is [his] workshop in the old farm building,” and “[n]o summons was sent to the workshop.” Id. at 12.

[10] JSI maintains that Russell was properly served under Ind. Trial Rule 4.1. It argues Evelyn “could legally sign for certified mailing to effectuate proper service under Ind Tr. R. 4.1” on Russell and the address served was Russell's place of business or employment. Appellee's Brief at 10. JSI also argues that service was reasonably calculated to inform Russell of the action under Ind. Trial Rule 4.15, that it sent nineteen invoices to the address provided by Russell, and that its counsel sent a collection notice/demand letter on October 14, 2022, by first class mail to the address and via email to the email address provided by Russell.

[11] The entry of a default judgment is authorized by Ind. Trial Rule 55(A), and pursuant to Trial Rule 55(C) a judgment by default which has been entered may be set aside by the court for the grounds and in accordance with the provisions of Ind. Trial Rule 60(B). Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) provides that the court may relieve a party “from a judgment, including a judgment by default, for the following reasons: ․ (6) the judgment is void[.]”

[12] In Indiana, whether a judgment is void turns on whether the defendant was served with process effective for that purpose under the Indiana Rules of Procedure. Jordache White & Am. Transp., LLC v. Reimer, 61 N.E.3d 301, 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Personal jurisdiction is a question of law. Id. at 305. Therefore, our review is de novo, and we do not defer to the trial court's legal conclusion as to whether personal jurisdiction exists. Id. However, to the extent that personal jurisdiction turns on disputed facts, the trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Id.

[13] Ind. Trial Rule 4.1(A) provides in part that service may be made upon an individual by “(1) sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail or other public means by which a written acknowledgment of receipt may be requested and obtained to his residence, place of business or employment with return receipt requested and returned showing receipt of the letter[.]”⁶ Ind. Trial Rule 4.15(F) provides that “[n]o summons or the service thereof shall be set aside or be adjudged insufficient when either is reasonably calculated to inform the person to be served that an action has been instituted against him, the name of the court, and the time within which he is required to respond.” Trial Rule 4.15(F) only cures technical defects in the service of process, not the total failure to serve process. Jordache White, 61 N.E.3d at 306.

[14] “Service delivered by United States mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail with a return receipt satisfies the method requirement of due process․ [A]ctual delivery to the party is not jurisdictionally necessary.” Id. at 307 (quoting Buck v. P.J.T., 182 Ind. App. 71, 73, 394 N.E.2d 935, 937 (1979), trans. denied). “Under Indiana law, service by mail is effective even if someone other than the intended recipient ultimately signs the return receipt.” Marshall v. Erie Ins. Exch., 923 N.E.2d 18, 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Precision Erecting, Inc. v. Wokurka, 638 N.E.2d 472, 474 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (“We find nothing in the trial rules requiring that the individual to whom service of process is mailed be the one who signs the return receipts in order for service to be effective.”), trans. denied), aff'd on reh'g, trans. denied; see also Buck, 182 Ind. App. at 73, 394 N.E.2d at 937 (affirming default judgment where defendant was served via certified mail and return receipt was signed by someone else). A March 3, 2023 entry in the CCS indicates the complaint and summons were issued by certified mail, and on March 9, 2023, Evelyn received and acknowledged the certified mail addressed to Russell at 520 E. 625 S., North Judson, Indiana 46366. Although a person other than Russell signed the return service receipt, actual delivery to Russell was not required. See Jordache White, 61 N.E.3d at 306-307 (“[T]he Appellants contend that White was never served even though Reimer received a return receipt, signed by a third party, from the address that White provided ․ There is no question that Reimer satisfied that burden here when he served White at the Thebes, Illinois, address ․ and that service was received and signed for by a party at that address, albeit someone other than White.”).

[15] Further, the address of 520 E. 625 S., North Judson, Indiana 46366 was the mailing address associated with Russell's place of business or employment. The invoices listed the address as the billing address and shipping address, the Indiana Secretary of State listed the address as the business's principal office address as well as Russell's address, and Russell indicated that he was the person who retrieved the mail from the mailbox associated with the address. Even if Russell operated his business from a “workshop in the old farm building,” Appellant's Brief at 12, the business used 520 E. 625 S., North Judson, Indiana 46366 as its principal office address.⁷ We also note that JSI's counsel took the additional step of sending a notice of collection letter by first class mail enclosing the prospective complaint to that address. We find that Russell had sufficient notice of JSI's lawsuit, and accordingly we affirm the trial court's denial of his Verified Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment. See Jordache White, 61 N.E.3d at 307 (“We hold that White had sufficient notice of the lawsuit and, as such, we affirm the trial court's denial of the Appellants’ motion to set aside the default judgment with respect to White.”).

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Exhibit A to the complaint contains information from the Indiana Secretary of State for 4D MFG. Under “Business Details,” it states “Creation Date: 02/21/2017,” “Principal Office Address: 0520 E 625 S, North Judson, IN, 46366,” “Business Status: Admin Dissolved,” and “Inactive Date: 08/05/2019.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 12. Under “Governing Person Information,” it lists Evelyn Dollahan, Russell Dollahan, and Mollie Dollahan as “Member” and, for each person, lists an address of “0520 E 625 S, North Judson, IN, 46366.” Id. Under “Registered Agent Information,” it states “Name: Mollie Dollahan” and “Address: 0520 E 625 S, North Judson, IN, 46366.” Id.

2.   The invoices attached to the complaint as Exhibits F and G document the purchase of wall electric welded tubing, hot rolled round, and gauge square tubing and include billing and shipping addresses of 520 E 625 S, North Judson, Indiana, 46366. The invoices included Russell's name under “Ship To.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 19-20. A “Customer Open Balance” sheet attached as Exhibit H lists nineteen invoices dated from June 12, 2021, through January 29, 2023. Id. at 21.

3.   The letter dated October 14, 2022, attached to the complaint as Exhibit C was addressed to “4D MFG/Russell Dollahan,” included an address of 520 E 625 S, North Judson, Indiana, 46366, and stated that copies of the overdue notice and proposed complaint were enclosed. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 14. The email attached as Exhibit D was also dated October 14, 2022, and indicated that the proposed complaint was attached.

4.   Each return of service receipt indicates the mailing was addressed to 520 E 625 S, North Judson, Indiana 46366.

5.   Russell's memorandum did not claim that service upon 4D MFG was defective, but stated “4D MFG, LLC having been administratively dissolved, Russell Dollahan is the only viable defendant herein.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 63. We do not address the judgment against 4D MFG.

6.   Service may also be made under Trial Rule 4.1(A) by: “(2) delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally; or (3) leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at his dwelling house or usual place of abode; or (4) serving his agent as provided by rule, statute or valid agreement.” “Whenever service is made under Clause (3) or (4) of subdivision (A), the person making the service also shall send by first class mail, a copy of the summons and the complaint to the last known address of the person being served, and this fact shall be shown upon the return.” Trial Rule 4.1(B).

7.   There is no indication that there was a separate mailing address associated with the workshop.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.