The borrower was in prison when served. The decree came and went. Then the appeals court stepped in
An Ohio appeals court reversed a foreclosure default judgment against an incarcerated borrower - a reminder for servicers about when service of process counts.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals handed down its decision on November 10, 2026, sending the case back to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to determine whether the lender properly served the borrower before entering the decree.
The property sits on Noe Bixby Road in Columbus. The borrower executed a promissory note in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on October 13, 2017, secured by a mortgage. Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed the foreclosure complaint on May 4, 2023, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association later substituted in. By the time U.S. Bank filed a second amended complaint on June 6, 2024, the borrower was incarcerated at Southeastern Correctional Institution.
After certified mail initially failed, a process server left the summons and complaint with the facility’s intake officer on August 16, 2024. The borrower never responded. U.S. Bank obtained default judgment and a foreclosure decree on October 21, 2024. The property sold at sheriff’s sale on April 25, 2025, generating $61,060.07 in excess proceeds.
Those proceeds triggered a separate fight. The borrower claimed them, but a magistrate denied his motion under Ohio Revised Code 2105.19(A), which bars anyone convicted of murder from benefiting by the victim’s death. The excess went to the deceased wife’s estate.
What matters for servicers came next. On April 14, 2026, the borrower filed a motion to vacate the foreclosure decree, arguing he was never properly served and that service fell outside the timeline required by Ohio Civil Rule 3(A).
The trial court denied it without reaching the merits. The borrower had appeared in court multiple times between October 2025 and January 2026 seeking excess funds without raising service. That silence, the court held, was waiver.
The Tenth District disagreed. All of that participation happened after the decree was entered - and timing is everything. If a court lacks personal jurisdiction when it enters judgment, that judgment is “void ab initio” - void from the start, a nullity. Nothing afterward can fix that.
“A judgment that is void ab initio is void from the moment it is entered and is a nullity,” the court wrote.
For servicers and foreclosure counsel, the takeaway is consequential: defective service cannot be repaired by post-judgment activity, even when the borrower litigates in the same case.
The case has not reached final resolution. On remand, the trial court must determine whether it had personal jurisdiction before the decree was entered.
