The borrower's off-the-record refinancing talks carried zero weight in court
An Ohio appeals court affirmed a foreclosure default judgment, ruling that a borrower's off-the-record settlement talks carried no weight because they never made it into the court file.
The Third District Court of Appeals of Ohio upheld the default judgment and foreclosure order in favor of Cross Country Mortgage, LLC on September 14, 2026.
Cross Country Mortgage originated a $147,250 fixed-rate loan at 7.125 percent interest in July 2024 for a property in Lakeview, Ohio. The borrower defaulted in February 2025. Cross Country Mortgage filed a foreclosure complaint in December 2025, seeking $146,229.75 in principal plus accrued interest from February 1, 2025, a forbearance balance of $1,083.72, and late charges. The borrower did not respond. The Logan County Common Pleas Court entered default judgment and a foreclosure order on March 10, 2026.
Representing herself on appeal, the borrower argued the trial court violated her due process rights by granting default judgment without adequate notice. She said she received the mailed hearing notice only on the day of the March 9, 2026 hearing, with no time to attend or mount a defense.
Her central argument turned on Ohio Civil Rule 55(A). When a defendant has appeared in a case - even informally, through contacts signaling an intent to defend - the court must give seven days' notice before entering default judgment. The borrower claimed out-of-court refinancing discussions with Cross Country Mortgage met that standard.
The appeals court found no evidence of those negotiations in the trial court record. The borrower's claim rested on assertions in her appellate brief, which the court said it could not consider. A reviewing court is limited to what was before the trial court.
Without record evidence of an appearance, the default judgment was proper.
The court rejected two related arguments. Ohio law treats mailed service as constitutionally sufficient, and service is complete upon mailing - not delivery. The clerk mailed notice on February 10, 2026, and nothing in the record rebutted that presumption.
On the borrower's claim that Civil Rule 6(D) required three extra days for mail delivery, the court held the rule applies only to prescribed deadlines for a party to act after being served - not to court scheduling. The Ohio Supreme Court has confirmed that distinction.
Presiding Judge authored the opinion, with two Judges concurring. The panel noted the borrower's proper path would have been a motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(B) rather than a direct appeal.
