Amir v. Werner, 2012 Ohio 5863

Fred Amir filed a breach of contract and unjust enrichment claim against Jerry Werner in 2011.
Complaint served by certified mail at Werner's Ferguson Drive address; Werner answered.
A Magistrate’s Order dated July 27, 2011 scheduled a pre-trial (Sept. 8, 2011) and trial (Oct. 27, 2011).
Pre-trial order warned of sanctions for noncompliance or absence; Amir and Werner listed on cc lines.
Magistrate found Werner failed to appear; authorized case on merits; awarded Amir $6,300 for breach.
Werner argued lack of notice; trial court credited notice via address of record and docket posting; ordered judgment August/October 2011 and denied Civ.R. 60(B) relief; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Werner received due process notice of the pre-trial	Werner did not receive proper notice; lack of actual/constructive notice undermines due process.	Notice was provided via address of record and docket posting; adequate under due process.	Due process notice lacking; abuse of discretion; remand for new proceedings.

Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Ass’n, 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (1986) (constructive notice may suffice for trial date, but depends on proper notice)
PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Prater, 133 Ohio St.3d 91 (2012-Ohio-3931) (constructive notice limitations when address known or easily ascertainable)
In re: Yoder Co., 758 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir.1985) (mailbox rule requires proof of proper addressing and mailing)
Kalail v. Dave Walter, Inc., 9th Dist. No. 22817 (2006-Ohio-157) (due process notice; mailbox rule limitations)
Lambert v. Hilbish, 9th Dist. No. 25017 (2010-Ohio-2738) (notice issues; objection to magistrate decision needed proper vehicle)
Britt v. Miskovic, 9th Dist. No. 25142 (2010-Ohio-4637) (docket notice and notice methods discussed)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)