The co-owner walked into mediation but was never actually served
An Ohio appeals court tossed a foreclosure decree because the lender never properly served one of the property’s co-owners.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the Lucas County judgment on October 16, finding Union Home Mortgage Corporation had no evidence of service on one of two co-tenants. No service, no jurisdiction - and without jurisdiction, the order was void.
The loan is a $136,704 promissory note executed in August 2013, secured by a mortgage on a property in Sylvania, Ohio. A second co-tenant joined as a joint owner with survivorship rights by deed recorded in March 2017. The property also secured a $71,700 credit line from The Huntington National Bank, signed by both co-tenants in 2018.
Union Home filed its foreclosure action in July 2023 after acquiring the note. It attempted service by certified mail, but the appellate record contained nothing - no return of service or otherwise - showing the second co-tenant was ever reached.
That co-tenant filed no answer, no motion, nothing. He did show up to a court-ordered telephonic mediation in January 2024, appearing pro se. Mediation terminated based on information he provided.
Union Home moved for summary judgment and separately for judgment on the pleadings against him. A visiting judge granted both in November 2024, finding all parties were “properly before the Court” and treating the mediation as a “limited appearance” sufficient to rule.
The appeals court disagreed. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Sulek held that participating in mediation, “absent more,” did not trigger waiver under Ohio Civil Rule 12(H). Failing to file any responsive pleading does not waive a service defect - waiver requires an affirmative act, like raising other defenses while omitting the jurisdictional one.
Judgment on the pleadings was also the wrong tool. Under Civil Rule 12(C), that remedy requires pleadings to be “closed” - and where a party never answered, they are not. Default judgment under Civil Rule 55 would have been the proper route.
Here is where survivorship co-tenancy bit the lender. Because both co-tenants held the property with survivorship rights, the void judgment against one necessarily reached the other’s interest. The decree was reversed and remanded. The judgment against the served co-tenant - who appeared, litigated, and defaulted - stood.
For foreclosure teams, the point is sharp: serving one co-owner is not the same as serving them all, and a borrower walking into mediation does not paper over the gap.
The case is at the slip opinion stage. The matter returns to the trial court.
