×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Ohio Supreme Court: Due Process Not Satisfied by Procedure Requiring Parties to Monitor Internet for Property Foreclosure Sales
In September 2012, the Ohio Supreme court held that it was insufficient for due process purposes to serve constructive notice on a party via the Internet, where the party has a property interest in a foreclosure proceeding and the party’s address is known or easily ascertainable.
The controversy arose when the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office informed PHH Mortgage Corporation that it would have to monitor the sheriff’s website to learn of the date, time, and location of a sale involving property on which PHH had been granted foreclosure. Previously, the Sheriff’s Office had provided actual notice by mail to all parties with a property interest in a foreclosure proceeding. It has changed this practice (at the end of 2009) in an effort to control rising costs.
The property on which PHH had foreclosed was sold in April 2010 to Scott Wolf. PHH moved to set aside the sale, claiming it had not received actual notice of the sale’s date, time and location.
The trial court and the Clermont County Court of Appeals ruled against PHH. The Ohio Supreme Court noted “the new Internet notice procedure shifts the burden of notification from the sheriff’s office to the persons to whom the notice is directed,” and held that “requiring parties to first read a notice that directs them to a website to then search for information that could just as readily have been a part of the original notice” did not satisfy due process. See: PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Prater, 133 Ohio St.3d 91, 975 N.E.2d 1008 (Ohio 2012).
The controversy arose when the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office informed PHH Mortgage Corporation that it would have to monitor the sheriff’s website to learn of the date, time, and location of a sale involving property on which PHH had been granted foreclosure. Previously, the Sheriff’s Office had provided actual notice by mail to all parties with a property interest in a foreclosure proceeding. It has changed this practice (at the end of 2009) in an effort to control rising costs.
The property on which PHH had foreclosed was sold in April 2010 to Scott Wolf. PHH moved to set aside the sale, claiming it had not received actual notice of the sale’s date, time and location.
The trial court and the Clermont County Court of Appeals ruled against PHH. The Ohio Supreme Court noted “the new Internet notice procedure shifts the burden of notification from the sheriff’s office to the persons to whom the notice is directed,” and held that “requiring parties to first read a notice that directs them to a website to then search for information that could just as readily have been a part of the original notice” did not satisfy due process. See: PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Prater, 133 Ohio St.3d 91, 975 N.E.2d 1008 (Ohio 2012).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Prater
| Year | 2012 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 133 Ohio St.3d 91, 975 N.E.2d 1008 (Ohio 2012) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |