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.

Robert E. Goering v. Scott R. Lacher

October 26, 2011

ROBERT E. GOERING,
PLAINTIFF, AND
JOHN KNOX, INTERVENOR-APPELLEE,
v.
SCOTT R. LACHER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND JUANITA L. LACHER, DEFENDANT.



Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed TRIAL NO. A-0905374

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hildebrandt, Judge.

Cite as Goering v. Lacher,

OPINION.

From Is: Affirmed

Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Scott R. Lacher appeals the judgment of the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate a default judgment in a foreclosure action.

{¶2} On June 1, 2009, Hamilton County Treasurer Robert E. Goering filed an action in foreclosure against Lacher and his wife, Juanita L. Lacher. Goering sought foreclosure on the Lachers' residence because of delinquent taxes. Process was delivered through certified mail where the Lachers resided, and Juanita signed for the two envelopes.

{¶3} The Lachers did not answer the complaint, and Goering was granted a default judgment. The property was purchased by intervenor-appellee John Knox at a sheriff's sale. The sale to Knox was confirmed on February 17, 2010.

{¶4} On April 28, 2010, Scott Lacher filed a motion to vacate the judgment or, in the alternative, a motion for relief from the judgment under Civ.R. 60(B).

{¶5} At the hearings on the motions, Lacher testified that he had not received actual notice of the proceedings. According to Lacher, Juanita had handled all of the couple's financial affairs. He adduced evidence that, although she had accepted service of process, she had not opened the envelopes. Instead, she had hidden them in a storage facility along with other unopened mail.

{¶6} Lacher testified that Juanita had not informed him of the foreclosure action until April 14, 2010. On that night, she had told him about the proceedings during an altercation in which she had stabbed him. He stated that he had immediately investigated the matter after recovering from his wounds.

{¶7} The trial court denied Lacher's motions, and this appeal followed.

{ΒΆ8} In his first assignment of error, Lacher argues that the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the foreclosure judgment. Specifically, he contends that service of process was not perfected because he had not received actual notice of the proceedings and ...


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.