COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69828 DEPOSIT GUARANTY MORTGAGE : COMPANY : ACCELERATED CASE Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION HUBERT TROY KINNEY, ET AL. : : PER CURIAM Defendants-Appellants : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MARCH 14, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CV-280377 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: JOSEPH C. SCHROEDER (#0056137) JAMES P. BAUER (#0067136) SHAPIRO & FELTY 6480 Rockside Woods Blvd. S. Suite 340 Independence, OH 44131 For Defendant-Appellant: THOMAS P. ALDRICH, III (#0042451) 1060 Greyton Road Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44112 - 2 - PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Hubert Troy Kinney ("appellant") appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Deposit Guaranty Mortgage Company ("Deposit Guaranty")in an action on a default of a mortgage note. Appellant assigns the following errors for review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLEE COMPLIED WITH APPLICABLE FORECLOSURE LAW WHEN THEY FAILED TO GIVE APPELLANT PROPER, TIMELY NOTICE OF DEFAULT. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT IT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN RATIFYING APPELLEE'S ACTIONS. III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT IT DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT APPELLEE'S FAILURE TO OFFER APPELLANT THE RIGHT TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW. Finding none of the assignments of error to have merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. On November 16, 1994, Deposit Guaranty filed a complaint for money judgment, foreclosure and relief against appellant. Deposit Guaranty held a promissory note for $38,173.59 plus interest which secured a mortgage on property owned by appellant. Deposit Guaranty averred appellant had defaulted on the payment of the note and it exercised the acceleration provision. Deposit Guaranty requested residence service upon appellant. The address used for service was that of the property which was mortgaged. Service also was requested for appellant's unknown - 3 - spouse and tenants who were additional defendants in the action. A number of attempts were made to serve appellant before service was perfected in May of 1995 at a different address. On June 20, 1995, appellant answered and admitted he had never himself made a payment on the promissory note. Appellant counter- claimed because he had not received notice of the default in a timely manner. Deposit Guaranty filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued it had an absolute legal right to accelerate and call due the entire unpaid principal balance. Appellant responded that he had never lived at the mortgaged property or made a mortgage payment. He stated Deposit Guaranty should have had the address of his residence in its files and served him there. The case was submitted to a magistrate who granted Deposit Guaranty's motion for summary judgment. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and entered judgment for Deposit Guaranty. II. Appellant's three assignments of error will be addressed together as appellant has failed to separately argue the assignments of error. Appellant argues service was inadequate because notice was sent to rental property at which appellant never resided. He contends Deposit Guaranty should have ascertained appellant's residence address. Because it did not, there were repeated unsuccessful attempts to perfect service over a seven and - 4 - one-half month period. Appellant asserts those attempts were not reasonably calculated to give him notice of the action so that his due process rights were violated. Appellant relies on In re Foreclosure of Liens (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 333, which involved a tax lien foreclosure. Notice of the foreclosure was published in a newspaper for three consecutive weeks and mailed to the address of the property in question and not the appellant's residence. The court held at paragraph one of the syllabus: Due process requires that notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The court construed R.C. 5721.18(B) to require the treasurer to send notice to the appellant's residence address when the treasurer has actual knowledge of a different residence address. The address used must be such that a taxpayer would be reasonably calculated to be in receipt of the notice. It can be presumed a taxpayer can be reached at an address which that taxpayer supplied to officials. In Central National Bank v. Perry (April 5, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 56831, unreported, this court held that it was sufficient to serve a party at the address to be foreclosed where the bank was not informed of the party's residence address. The instant case factually is closer to Perry then to Liens. In Liens, the treasurer was aware of the party's correct residence address. There is nothing in the record reflecting Deposit Guaranty ever was - 5 - apprised of appellant's residence address. Appellant argues Deposit Guaranty should have known his residence address but never provides any evidence that he informed Deposit Guaranty of his address. Therefore, as in Perry, it was sufficient to send notice to the mortgaged property. Further, Deposit Guaranty's repeated attempts to perfect service at different addresses reflects an attempt to prosecute the action not an intent to further increase the debt owed by appellant. Appellants' first, second and third assignments of error lack merit. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. LEO M. SPELLACY, CHIEF JUSTICE PATRICIA BLACKMON, JUDGE JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .