Ohio Supremes Reject 'Internet Method' Of Providing F'closure Notice Where Party's Address Is Known, Easily Ascertainable; Reverses 2 Lower Ct. Rulings That OK'd Cheap, Easy Way To Serve Non-Defaulting Defendants

From Justia.com:

• At issue in this case was whether a county sheriff can meet the constitutional obligation of providing notice of a sheriff's sale to a plaintiff by letter directing the plaintiff's attorney to monitor a website for a listing of the date, time, and location of sale. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the sheriff's sale.
  
  The Supreme Court reversed, holding that constructive notice by publication to a party with a property interest in a foreclosure proceeding via a sheriff's office website is insufficient to constitute due process when that party's address is known or easily ascertainable. Remanded.(1)(2)

Source: PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Prater Opinion Summary.

For the ruling, see PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Prater, 2012 Ohio 3931 (September 6, 2012).

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on the ruling.

(1) After its analysis of the applicable U.S. Supreme Court and Ohio case law, the state high court concluded its opinion with this nutshell:

• Constructive notice through the Internet, which is more akin to notice by publication in a newspaper, is simply not sufficient or reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to all nondefaulting parties. Moreover, as noted by Judge Powell, a change in notice requirements in this area would more appropriately be contemplated by local or state rule change.
  
  Accordingly, we hold that constructive notice by publication to a party with a property interest in a foreclosure proceeding via a sheriff's office website is insufficient to constitute due process when that party's address is known or easily ascertainable.
  
  We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals denying PHH's motion to set aside the sheriff's sale.

(2) Among the non-profit, consumer advocate 'friends of the court' who jumped into the litigation to urge the Ohio Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings were:

• Southeastern Ohio Legal Services,
• Ohio Poverty Law Center, L.L.C.,
• Community Legal Aid Services, Inc.,
• Legal Aid Society of Columbus,
• Pro Seniors, Inc.