COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59879 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COM- : PANY, ET AL. : : Plaintiff-appellees : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION KEVIN HUFF : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : FEBRUARY 6, 1992 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Cleveland Municipal : Case No. 85-CVE-3047 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellees: For defendant-appellant: William T. Kinzel, Esq. Paul Mancino, Jr., Esq. 5000 Rockside Road, No. 400 75 Public Square Bldg. Cleveland, OH 44131 Suite 1016 Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, J., Defendant-appellant Kevin Huff ("appellant") appeals from the lower court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment ("60(B) Motion"). Appellant, in his motion, asserted he had a good and valid defense to the default judgment rendered against him as he was never served with a copy of the complaint. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the lower court's decision. On February 5, 1985, plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company filed a complaint for money damages which alleged defendant converted plaintiff's insured automobile. The docket sheet reflects that appellant received, by certified mail, a copy of the complaint. Appellant personally signed the return receipt, which was received by the court on May 9, 1985. On February 6, 1990, appellant filed a 60(B) Motion, which alleged by a sworn affidavit, that he never received a copy of the complaint. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition which averred that appellant did indeed receive a copy of the complaint. Plaintiff attached a certified copy of the docket sheet to its brief in opposition which evidenced that appellant did sign for service of the complaint. Also attached was a sworn affidavit by plaintiff's counsel which revealed that appellant was aware of the judgment entered against him in September of 1987 and also stated that appellant had no intention of paying the judgment because he had already served time in jail - 3 - and paid the court ordered restitution for conversion of plaintiff's automobile. A hearing was held on appellant's 60(B) Motion by a referee. The referee issued a report which recommended said motion be overruled. Appellant filed objections and the trial court adopted the referee's report. Appellant's timely appeal now asserts the following for our review: I. THE COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN ADOPTING THE REPORT OF THE REFEREE THAT WAS TOTALLY LACKING IN ANY EVIDENTIARY CONTENT SO AS TO PERMIT THE COURT TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW. II. THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VACATING JUDGMENT WHERE THERE IS AN ALLEGATION OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION REQUIRES SATISFACTION OF THE TEST SET FORTH IN THE GTE CASE. I. In appellant's first assignment of error, he contends the trial court erred in adopting the referee's report when that report did not contain sufficient information from which the judge could have rendered his own decision based upon an independent analysis of the facts. We disagree. Appellant correctly asserts that a referee's report may contain a conclusion regarding an issue in the case so long as the facts that lead to that conclusion are included in the report. See, Bobko v. Sagen (1989), 6l Ohio App. 3d 397, 410; Nolte v. Nolte (1978), 60 Ohio App. 2d 227, 230; Logue v. Wilson - 4 - (1975), 45 Ohio App. 2d 132, 136. Appellant maintains that the facts which lead to the referee's conclusion were not included in the report. Our review of the record reveals that, although the referee's report was brief, he stated the factual reason for his conclusion to overrule appellant's 60(B) Motion, to wit: that the requirements of the GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 146, test for granting relief from judgment were not satisfied. The trial court had before it the evidentiary materials which indicated that appellant had indeed been served. There was sufficient information to have allowed the trial court to make an independent analysis of the case. In re Estate of Fisher (1983), 12 Ohio App. 3d 150, 153, especially considering the lack of complexity of the facts in the subject case. Accordingly, the first assigned error is overruled. II. In appellant's second assignment of error, he argues the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's 60(B) Motion. Specifically, he contends the judgment below is void as service of the complaint was never perfected. The record belies this contention. While it is true that when a defendant specifies in a 60(B) Motion and attaches an uncontradicted sworn statement that he never received service of the complaint, the defendant is - 5 - entitled to have the judgment against him vacated. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Forgus (1989), 58 Ohio App. 3d 78, 80; Rafalski v. Oates (1984), 17 Ohio App. 3d 65, 66-7; McCort v. McCort (July 20, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55521, unreported, at 5-6. Appellant, in this case, received service of the complaint. His sworn affidavit is indeed controverted by evidence produced by plaintiff that appellant received service of the complaint. Accordingly, the second assigned error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, P.J. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .