A court has jurisdiction to rule on a controversy between parties if it has obtained personal jurisdiction over the parties and possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the parties' claims.
The subject matter jurisdiction of a court is a court's "power to hear and decide a case upon its merits[.]" Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 61 O.O.2d 335, 290 N.E.2d 841, paragraph one of the syllabus.
A court's subject matter jurisdiction is invoked by the filing of a complaint. See Wilson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 496, 499, 597 N.E.2d 1148, 1149-1150. Once a court of competent jurisdiction acquires jurisdiction over an action, its authority continues until a final judgment on the merits of the dispute before it has been issued.John Weenink & Sons Co. v. Court of Common Pleas (1948), 150 Ohio St. 349, 38 O.O. 189, 82 N.E.2d 730, paragraph three of the syllabus.
The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived. Time Warner AxS v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 229, 233, 661 N.E.2d 1097, 1101. Objections based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, In re Byard (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 294, 296, 658 N.E.2d 735, 737, and may even be raised for the first time on appeal. Jenkins v. Keller (1966), 6 Ohio St.2d 122, 35 O.O.2d 147, 216 N.E.2d 379, paragraph five of the syllabus.
In contrast, personal jurisdiction can be waived. Civ.R. 12(H).
A court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant by service of process, or by the defendant's voluntary appearance or actions. Maryhew v. Yova (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 11 OBR 471, 472-473, 464 N.E.2d 538, 540-541. Thus, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived if it is not raised in a responsive pleading or in a motion filed prior to the answer. Civ.R. 12(B) and (H); see also Franklin v. Franklin (1981), 5 Ohio App.3d 74, 76, 5 OBR 186, 188-189, 449 N.E.2d 457, 459-460.
A lack of personal jurisdiction due to the failure to personally serve a defendant with a copy of the traffic ticket is a defense based upon a defect in the (start) institution of the prosecution. Such defense must be raised before the plea at the arraignment. Traf. R. 11(B)(1)(a). STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, -VS- JESSE SMITH, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 2007 Ohio 3182; 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 2981
Defendants in a traffic case must raise any defenses or objections based on defects in the (start) institution of the proceedings before the entry of a plea. Traf.R. 11(B). Accordingly, a defendant waives any objections to the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction by failing to assert such objections at the time the defendant appears in the trial court and enters a not guilty plea. Columbus v. Ford, Franklin App. No. 04AP-550, 2004 Ohio 5715 at P7, citing State v. Savage (1977), 60 Ohio App.2d 394, 397 N.E.2d 1205; and Cleveland v. Fitos, Cuyahoga App. No. 81404, 2003 Ohio 33, at P11.
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER S. COOK, Defendant-Appellant. 2006 Ohio 1953; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1784
By filing a motion to dismiss before pleading not guilty and before a trial date is scheduled. Pursuant to Traf. Rule 11(B)(1)(a), the jurisdictional objection is timely raised. City of Toledo, Appellee v. Donald Steven Williams, Appellant, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 162
It is rudimentary that in order to render a valid personal judgment, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This may be acquired either by service of process upon the defendant, the voluntary appearance and submission of the defendant or his legal representative, or by certain acts of the defendant or his legal representative which constitute an involuntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. The latter may more accurately be referred to as a waiver of certain affirmative defenses, including jurisdiction over the person under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
A request by a defendant to the trial court for leave to move or otherwise plead is not a motion or a responsive pleading contemplated by Civ. R. 7, and the obtaining of such order does not constitute waiver under Civ. R. 12(H) of any affirmative defenses, nor does it submit the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.
A court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in order to hear and determine an action. Maryhew v. Yova (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 11 Ohio B. 471, 464 N.E.2d 538. A trial court's determination of whether personal jurisdiction over a party exists is a question of law, and appellate courts review questions of law under a de novo standard of review. Robinson v. Koch Refining Co.(June 17, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-900, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2682. The city first argues that the trial court had [**3] personal jurisdiction over appellee because she was properly served with the traffic ticket.
Ohio Traf.R. 3(A) provides that the Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket shall serve as both the complaint and summons in traffic cases. State v. Tate (Apr. 20, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-759, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 1798. Traf.R. 3(E) requires that the law enforcement officer issuing a ticket complete and sign the ticket and serve a copy of the completed ticket upon defendant. The rule does not expressly indicate how a traffic ticket must be served. However, various courts, relying on Akron v. Detweiler (1978), 54 Ohio Misc. 5, 6, 375 N.E.2d 824, have determined that the rule requires personal service of a traffic ticket. See State v. Campbell, 150 Ohio App. 3d 90, 2002 Ohio 6064, at P18, 779 N.E.2d 811; Oregon v. Fox(Jan. 21, 1983), Lucas App. No. L-82-317; see, also, Tate, supra (finding proper service of traffic ticket when defendant's signature on the ticket, indicating requirement of personal service of the ticket). Because the face of the traffic ticket itself includes a signature line for the defendant to sign indicating receipt [**4] of the traffic ticket, we agree that the rule contemplates personal service of the ticket on the defendant. Therefore, the police officer who writes a traffic ticket to an individual who has fled the scene of an accident must personally serve the ticket on that person.
A defendant in a traffic case must raise any defenses or objections based on defects in the institution of the proceedings before the entry of a plea. Traf.R. 11(B). Accordingly, a defendant waives [**5] any objections to the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction by failing to assert such objections at the time the defendant appears in the trial court and enters a not guilty plea. State v. Savage (1977), 60 Ohio App.2d 394, 397 N.E.2d 1205; Cleveland v. Fitos, Cuyahoga App. No. 81404, 2003 Ohio 33, at P11.
In the case at bar, appellee did not enter a plea in her two appearances before the trial court. Rather, she requested two continuances to consult with an attorney. These requests, without more, are not sufficient to constitute a waiver of appellee's objections to the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over her. See State v. Jones (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 604, 606, 602 N.E.2d 751 (finding waiver of personal jurisdiction where defendant requested continuance and signed an entry extending speedy-trial limits); cf. Toledo v. Williams (Jan. 18, 1991), Lucas App. No. L-89-340, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 162 (finding that defendant did not waive objections to trial court's personal jurisdiction when defendant did not enter a plea but scheduled a pretrial hearing).
Because appellee was not personally served with the traffic ticket and did not waive her [**6] objections to the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, the trial court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over her. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it dismissed the charge against appellee for lack of personal jurisdiction. The city's lone assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court is affirmed.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, -VS- JESSE SMITH, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Personal jurisdiction, as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction, can be waived. In fact, personal jurisdiction is not merely waived by failing to raise it at the first general appearance, but it is actually acquired by or conferred upon the court through the voluntary appearance and submission of the defendant or his legal representative. It is well-established that a defendant who appears before a court and enters a not guilty plea at arraignment waives any issues of personal jurisdiction due to a police officer's failure to serve the ticket upon the defendant.
COMMENT: Motion for lack of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and insufficiency of service of process upon the defendant.
MARYHEW ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. YOVA, APPELLEE 11 Ohio St. 3d 154; 464 N.E.2d 538; 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1124; 11 Ohio B. Rep. 471
In order to render a valid personal judgment, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Personal jurisdiction can be acquired either by service of process upon the defendant, the voluntary appearance and submission of the defendant or his legal representative, or by certain acts of the defendant or his legal representative which constitute an involuntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. The latter may more accurately be referred to as a waiver of certain affirmative defenses, including jurisdiction over the person under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.