COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60225 : SUSAN A. LANZA, (NKA HOUP) : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION : RICHARD A. LANZA : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT JUNE 11, 1992 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Domestic Relations of Common Pleas Court Case No. D-64080 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: JOAN J. RASMUSSEN TODD T. ARMANINI 1128 Standard Building 800 Standard Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J.: Richard A. Lanza defendant-appellant, hereinafter Defen- dant timely appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate a void judgment for Susan A. Lanza, nka Susan A. Houp plaintiff-appellee hereinafter Plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. This appeal arises out of a divorce decree granted to the parties on November 17, 1975. The decree awarded alimony, child support, a judgment for alimony and child support arrearages, and attorney fees to Plaintiff. On March 1, 1989, Plaintiff filed a motion to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support. Defendant was not present for the hearing and the referee issued a report finding Defendant in contempt. Defendant responded by filing an objection to the referee's report and a motion to vacate on the grounds that the service of process was defective and void. After hearing, review of the referee's report and defendant's objections thereto, the trial court granted the motion to show cause without ruling on the motion to vacate. The evidence in support of the motion to vacate was the certified mail service of process to Arthur Murray Dance Studio at 5245 Ridge Road, Parma, Ohio 44129, and the affidavit of Victor D. Lungaro. Lungaro stated that he was the owner-operator of the studio and that Richard A. Lanza did not work, reside, receive mail, or maintain an office at the studio in July of -3- 1975. There upon, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to vacate on June 27, 1990. In pertinent part, the hearing testimony revealed the following: Victor D. Lungaro owned and operated the Arthur Murray Dance Studio at 5245 Ridge Road in Parma, Ohio. Defendant was in his employ as a dance instructor. Defendant worked sporadically and left his employ abruptly. Lungaro signed the affidavit in support of the motion in reliance on his bookkeeper's representations, but admitted that he had no personal knowledge of when Defendant last worked for him. Isabelle Horton was the secretary and receptionist for Mr. Lungaro's studio in 1975. She signed for the certified mail service of process of the divorce complaint on July 19, 1975. Yet, she did not recall signing for it and did not recall when Defendant last worked for the studio. Defendant testified and maintained that he last worked at the studio in June, 1975. He could not give the specific date of his last day working for Lungaro, but was sure it was in June and prior to June 25th. Plaintiff testified that Defendant contacted her in 1975 after he received the complaint. She knew that Defendant was working at the studio because she contacted him there by phone several times between June and December of 1975. She was not sure where he lived because he moved around frequently and that was why she contacted him at work. -4- At the close of all evidence, the case was marked, heard and submitted. On the next day, June 28, 1990, the trial court found that Defendant was employed by the Arthur Murray Dance Studio in July of 1975, and was properly served with process at his place of employment. The motion was denied. Defendant's sole assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT BY FINDING THAT APPELLANT WAS EMPLOYED IN JULY OF 1975 BY THE ARTHUR MURRAY DANCE STUDIO AND WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH PROCESS AS SUCH FINDING WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Defendant's assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled. Counsel for Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it held that the service of process to Arthur Murray Dance Studio constituted sufficient service. We disagree. Certified mail service to an individual's business address complies with Civ. R. 4.1 and is Constitutionally sound, so long as it is reasonably calculated to reach the interested party. Akron-Canton Regional Airport Authority v. Swinehart (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 403, 406. A determination of whether notice was reasonably calculated to reach the interested party requires a case by case examination of the particular facts. Id. at 407. The particular facts of the instant case reveal that certified mail service to Arthur Murray Dance Studio, on July 19, 1975, was reasonably calculated to give Defendant notice of the divorce complaint. Plaintiff testified at the hearing that she knew Defendant worked at the studio because she contacted him -5- there frequently between June and December of 1975. She further explained that she did not try to serve him at his residence because he moved around frequently. Service which is in compliance with the Civil Rules and reasonably calculated to give notice, creates a presumption of proper service unless it is rebutted by sufficient evidence. Rafalski v. Oates (1984), 17 Ohio App. 3d 65, 66. Thus, the standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion and the test is as follows: Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foly Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 279. In the instant case, Defendant's testimony that he did not receive service was contradicted by Plaintiff's testimony that he called her and complained after he received service of process. Defendant's other witnesses, Lungaro and Horton, had no personal knowledge of when the defendant stopped working at the studio and, therefore, provided no credible competent evidence in the hearing. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in finding that Defendant was served, that the judgment was not void and was supported by competent, credible evidence in the testimony of Plaintiff that Defendant actually received service of process as evidenced by his call to her to challenge her for filing against him. -6- Judgment affirmed. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that Appellee recover of Appellant her 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 Common Pleas 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. Exceptions. PATTON, P.J., and JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement 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. .