Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Mary Russ

September 30, 2011

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
MARY RUSS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from Licking County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2010CV01264

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edwards, J.

Cite as Citimortgage, Inc. v. Russ,

JUDGES: William B. Hoffman, P.J. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Julie A. Edwards, J.

OPINION

JUDGMENT: Affirmed In Part, Vacated and Remanded In Part

{¶1} Appellant, Mary Russ, appeals the February 28, 2011, judgment of the Licking County Common Pleas Court confirming the order of sale on her home, which had been foreclosed on by default judgment entered September 23, 2010. Appellee is Citimortgage, Inc.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} Appellee filed the instant foreclosure action against appellant on August 17, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the docket shows service of the action was perfected by certified mail, received by "Cena Mascan." Appellant failed to answer the complaint. The trial court granted default judgment on September 23, 2010. An order confirming the sale of the property was entered on February 28, 2011.

{¶3} Appellant filed a motion to vacate pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B) on March 7, 2011, alleging that receipt of service was signed by her 13-year-old daughter, and appellant had no notice of the filing of the complaint until a tag was placed on the door of her home indicating it had been sold. On March 23, 2011, she filed an appeal from the February 28, 2011 order confirming the sale. The trial court found on April 12, 2011, that the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to rule on the Civ. R. 60(B) motion and denied the motion. Appellant assigns three errors:

{¶4} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS SERVICE WAS NEVER PROPERLY COMPLETED UPON MARY RUSS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULES 4.1 AND 4.2

{¶5} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE SHERIFF'S SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 28, 2011, AS THE TRIAL COURT NEVER PROPERLY OBTAINED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT MARY RUSS.

{¶6} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE."

I

{ΒΆ7} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in entering default judgment against her because she was not properly served with the complaint. App. R. 4(A) requires a party to file a notice of appeal within 30 days. While appellant argues that she did not receive this entry and therefore could not file a timely appeal, the entry reflects that a copy of the default judgment was mailed to her. Having failed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.