A recent appellate court decision has overturned a trial court’s order that found a residential property to be a public nuisance and placed it under the control of a nonprofit organization, raising questions about proper legal notification in such cases. The ruling comes after the property owner argued she was not adequately informed of the lawsuit, potentially impacting how similar cases are handled in the future.
The appeal was filed by Janiene Johnson in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Montgomery County, under case number 30465. The complaint had originally been brought against her by Community Gain, a nonprofit organization operating in Montgomery County.
According to court documents, Community Gain filed its complaint on June 20, 2023, seeking to abate what it described as a public nuisance at Johnson’s property on Kings Highway. The nonprofit alleged that the residence had been vacant for years and suffered from extensive damage including missing walls, broken windows, roof collapse, trash accumulation, and an overgrown yard. Community Gain claimed Johnson was aware of these conditions but failed to make repairs. The organization presented what it called a financial and construction plan to remedy the situation and requested that the court declare the property a public nuisance, appoint it as receiver to execute its plan, and allow for eventual sale of the property upon completion of repairs.
Efforts to serve Johnson with notice of the lawsuit were unsuccessful at two different addresses—one on Taylor Avenue in Columbus and another on Alaska Avenue in Cincinnati—with both attempts returned as undeliverable or incorrect. After these failed attempts, Community Gain sought permission from the trial court to serve Johnson by publication—a process used when a party cannot be located—which was granted based on an affidavit from counsel stating her address was unknown.
On December 29, 2023, proof of publication was filed with the court indicating that notice had been published using Johnson’s last known address. Subsequently, on April 11, 2024, following no response from Johnson within required timeframes and after posting hearing notices at the Kings Highway property itself more than 28 days prior to hearing date, the trial court granted default judgment against her. The court found the property to be a public nuisance and appointed Community Gain as receiver with authority under Ohio law until completion of its remediation plan.
Johnson responded by filing a motion for relief from judgment on July 23, 2024. She disputed many allegations in Community Gain’s complaint and detailed improvements she said she made since purchasing the property in 2021—including spending $22,000 on a new roof and removing debris—as well as ongoing renovation efforts and payments toward back taxes. She argued that she was entitled to relief because she had not been properly served with notice of the lawsuit as required by law.
At issue before both courts was whether service by publication met legal standards given efforts made—or not made—to locate Johnson’s current address. During hearings on February 11, 2025, testimony indicated that while some searches were performed using county records and online resources for possible addresses associated with Johnson’s name (including those listed in auditor records), details about these efforts were not included in counsel’s affidavit requesting service by publication.
The appellate panel concluded that this omission rendered service by publication improper under Ohio Civil Rule 4.4(A)(1), which requires an affidavit detailing all efforts made to ascertain an individual’s residence before resorting to publication as notice. Citing precedent—including its own previous rulings—the appeals court stated: “Counsel’s affidavit in support of service by publication was deficient. It did not identify the efforts made to obtain Johnson’s address.” As such, it found that “the trial court erred in failing to find the judgment void and grant Johnson’s motion to vacate.”
Because proper service is necessary for courts to exercise jurisdiction over defendants—and failure can render any resulting judgments void—the appellate judges vacated all orders granting default judgment against Johnson as well as her loss of control over her property through receivership appointment.
The matter has now been remanded back to Montgomery County Common Pleas Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Attorneys named in connection with this case include Joseph C. Lucas representing appellant Janiene Johnson and Scott S. Davies representing appellee Community Gain. Judges Mary K. Huffman (authoring judge), Lewis (presiding judge), and Tucker concurred in this decision under case number CA No. 30465.
Source: 2026Ohio1211_Community_Gain_v_Johnson_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
