DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. HELEN DAVIS, et al.
Case No. 11CAE060055
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
November 8, 2011
2011-Ohio-5791
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.; Hon. John W. Wise, J.; Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 09CVE070864; JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
For Appellants: JOHN SHERROD, 2130 Arlington Ave., Columbus, OH 43221
For Appellee: JENNIFER N. HELLER, P.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati, OH 45201
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Helen J. Davis appeals the June 7, 2011 judgment entry of the Delawarе County Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant‘s Motion for Relief from Judgment. Plaintiff-Appellee is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.
{¶2} This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar.
“{¶3} (E) Determination and judgment on appeal.
{¶4} “The appeal will be determined as provided by
App.R. 11.1 . It shall be sufficient compliance withApp.R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court‘s deсision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.{¶5} “The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be published in any form.”
{¶6} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned rule.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶7} On July 1, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust filеd a complaint in foreclosure against Davis in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. The Delaware County Sheriff‘s Department served Davis with the complaint and summons by residential service on July 7, 2009. The Notice of Service was filed on July 8, 2009.
{¶8} On July 30, 2009, Davis timely filed a pro se Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead in Order to Mediate with Plaintiff/Lender. The trial court granted Davis’ motion on August 5, 2009. The judgment entry stated Davis was
{¶9} Davis did not file an answer within 30 days of the date of the August 5, 2009 judgment entry.
{¶10} The trial court held a status conference of the case оn March 26, 2010. Davis attended the status conference.
{¶11} Deutsche Bank filed a Motion for Default Judgment on May 12, 2010 because Davis had not yet filed аn answer to the complaint. The trial court set the Bank‘s motion for default judgment for a hearing pursuant to
{¶12} The hearing was held on June 22, 2010. Davis appeared at the hearing pro se. At the time of the hearing, Davis had not filed an answer to the complaint. The trial court granted the mоtion for default judgment by journal entry on June 23, 2010. A judgment and decree in foreclosure was granted on July 1, 2010.
{¶13} Davis did not file an appeal of the June 23, 2010 оr July 1, 2010 judgment entries.
{¶14} A confirmation of sale was filed April 19, 2011. Davis, through counsel, filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment on May 5, 2011. The trial court denied the motion on June 7, 2011 without hearing.
{¶15} It is from this decision Davis now appeals.
{¶16} Appellant raises one Assignment of Error:
{¶18} Davis argues the trial court erred when it denied her Motion for Relief from Judgment.
{¶19} The decision whether to grant a motion for relief from judgment under
{¶20} A party seeking relief from judgment pursuant to
{¶21} Davis makes multiple arguments as to why she is entitled to relief from judgment. Davis first argues the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter default judgment against her because the trial сourt did not have personal jurisdiction over Davis. Davis states she was not properly served with the complaint in foreclosure.
{¶22} The record in this case belies Davis’ contention that she was nоt served with the complaint and summons or that she did not submit to the trial court‘s jurisdiction. The record shows residential service of the complaint and summons on Helen J. Davis on July 7, 2009 by the Delaware County Sheriff‘s Department. Further, any arguments regarding service have been waived by Davis’ participаtion in the case. Davis filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File and Answer on July 30, 2009. She appeared at a status conference and at the default judgment hearing. Under this record, Davis’ argument that she was not under the jurisdiction of the trial court is without support.
{¶23} Davis appears to then utilize
{¶24} It is undisputed Davis did not file an answer in this case. While Davis worked with Deutsche Bank to remedy the default on her loan, the Rules of Civil Procedure must still be followed regardless of actions taken outside the courthouse doors. A pro se litigant is presumed to have knowledge of the law and correct legal procedures so that she remains subject to the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. Carskadon v. Avakian, 5th Dist. No. 11CAG020018, 2011-Ohio-4423, ¶ 33 citing Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co. (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 363, 676 N.E.2d 171. She is not given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequences of her mistakes. Id. citing Sinsky v. Matthews (Dec. 12, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 20499, at 5.
{¶25} Davis finally arguеs the trial court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion for relief from judgment. The standard for when an evidentiary hearing on a
{¶26} Davis never appealed the original entries granting default judgment or foreclosure. It is well settled that
{¶27} Davis’ sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
By: Delaney, J.
Farmer, P.J. and Wise, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
HON. JOHN W. WISE
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. HELEN DAVIS, et al.
Case No. 11CAE060055
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
2011-Ohio-5791
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant Helen Davis.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
HON. JOHN W. WISE