[Cite as Cross Country Mtge., L.L.C. v. Bulluck, 2026-Ohio-3591.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
CROSS COUNTRY
MORTGAGE, LLC, CASE NO. 8-26-06
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KRISTY KAY BULLUCK, ET AL., OPINION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CV 25 12 0554
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: September 14, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Kristy Kay Bulluck, Appellant
Eric T. Deighton for Appellee
Case No. 8-26-06
ZIMMERMAN, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Kristy Kay Bulluck (“Bulluck”), pro se, appeals
the May 27, 2025 judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas granting
default judgment and an order of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Cross
Country Mortgage, LLC (“Cross Country Mortgage”). For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
{¶2} On July 3, 2024, Bulluck executed a fixed-rate promissory note in the
amount of $147,250.00, payable to Cross Country Mortgage as lender, to purchase
a home located at 11330 Big Bear Path, Lakeview, Ohio. That same day, Bulluck
executed a mortgage deed against the property as security for the debt in favor of
Cross Country Mortgage. The mortgage was recorded on July 8, 2024, in Volume
1420 of the Official Records at Page 1120, in the Logan County Recorder’s Office.
{¶3} After Bulluck defaulted on the note in February 2025, Cross Country
Mortgage filed a foreclosure complaint against Bulluck on December 30, 2025.1 In
its complaint, Cross Country Mortgage requested a judgment in the amount of
$146,229.75, plus interest at the rate of 7.125 percent per annum from February 1,
2025, plus a forbearance balance of $1,083.72 and late charges.
1
The summons on the complaint was sent certified mail return receipt signed by “Eric Davis” on January 6, 2026, and filed in the record on January 9, 2026. The summons was also delivered by personal service to Bulluck by the Logan County Sheriff’s Office on January 6, 2026.
-2-Case No. 8-26-06
{¶4} Because Bulluck did not file a timely response, Cross Country
Mortgage filed a motion for default judgment on February 6, 2026. The motion
included a certificate of service certifying that a copy of the motion was sent by
ordinary mail to Bulluck on February 5, 2026. On February 10, 2026, the trial court
scheduled the matter for a hearing on March 9, 2026, and the record reflects that
notice of the hearing was sent to Bulluck.
{¶5} Following the March 9, 2026 hearing, the trial court’s magistrate
recommended that the trial court grant Cross Country Mortgage’s motion for default
judgment, provided no objections were filed. On March 10, 2026, the trial court
granted Cross Country Mortgage judgment by default and issued an order of
foreclosure.
{¶6} Instead of filing objections or a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in the trial court,
Bulluck filed a notice of appeal on April 3, 2026. She raises a single assignment of
error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court Violated The Defendant’s Constitutional Right
to Due Process By Failing To Provide Adequate Notice Of The
Trial Hearing.
{¶7} In her assignment of error, Bulluck contends that the trial court erred by
granting default judgment in favor of Cross Country Mortgage because she did not
receive the mailed notice of the hearing until the day it occurred, leaving her without
adequate notice of the hearing. Specifically, she argues that this inadequate notice
-3-Case No. 8-26-06
violated her constitutional due process rights and Civ.R. 6(D), which substantially
prejudiced her by eliminating any opportunity to attend the proceeding and present
a defense.
Standard of Review
{¶8} “‘We review a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for default
judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.’” Owner-Operator Servs. v.
Markovic Transp., 2021-Ohio-3785, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.), quoting Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Thompson, 2013-Ohio-644, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.). An abuse of discretion suggests
the trial court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore
v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). “‘Despite this deferential standard of
review, courts of appeals and trial courts, alike, must be mindful that “[g]enerally,
the law disfavors default judgments” and “[t]he general policy in Ohio is to decide
cases on their merits whenever possible.”’” Owner-Operator Servs. at ¶ 11, quoting
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Maxfield, 2016-Ohio-3396, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting
Baines v. Harwood, 87 Ohio App.3d 345, 347 (12th Dist. 1993).
{¶9} Unlike the general decision to grant a default judgment, however, a trial
court’s compliance with constitutional due process and the mandatory notice
requirements of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure is not a matter committed to the
court’s discretion. See, e.g., McEnteer v. Moss, 2005-Ohio-2679, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.)
Therefore, whether the trial court’s grant of default judgment comported with due
process and the notice requirements of Civ.R. 55(A) and Civ.R. 6(D) presents a
-4-Case No. 8-26-06
question of law, which we review de novo. See Smith v. Perkins, 2024-Ohio-1419,
¶ 31 (3d Dist.); Whitman v. Whitman, 2007-Ohio-4231, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.) (“Questions
concerning procedural due process are matters of law to be determined de novo on
appellate review.”). “De novo review is independent and without deference to the
trial court’s determination.” ISHA, Inc. v. Risser, 2013-Ohio-2149, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.).
Analysis
{¶10} In this case, Bulluck argues that the trial court erred by granting default
judgment in favor of Cross Country Mortgage because she was denied adequate
notice of the March 9, 2026 hearing. Procedurally, Bulluck asserts that ongoing
settlement discussions with Cross Country Mortgage constituted an appearance in
the action, thereby triggering the mandatory seven-day notice requirement under
Civ.R. 55(A). Constitutionally, she contends that receiving the mailed notice on the
actual day of the hearing violated her state and federal due process rights by
depriving her of a meaningful opportunity to prepare and participate. Finally, she
argues that the trial court compounded these defects by failing to apply the
mandatory three-day time extension for mail service required by Civ.R. 6(D).
{¶11} As a preliminary matter, we recognize that Bulluck is proceeding pro
se in this matter. It is well established that pro se litigants “are presumed to have
knowledge of the law and legal procedures, and they are held to the same standard
as litigants who are represented by counsel.” Homon v. Curtis, 2025-Ohio-4322, ¶
5 (3d Dist.). A reviewing court cannot simply excuse a pro se party’s failure to
-5-Case No. 8-26-06
utilize the proper procedural vehicle, nor can we overlook the foundational rules
governing appellate review. See Pinnacle Credit Servs. v. Kuzniak, 2009-Ohio1021, ¶ 29-31 (7th Dist.).
{¶12} Civ.R. 55(A) permits a trial court to enter default judgment when a
party fails to file a responsive pleading or otherwise participate in the defense of the
case. Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d
118, 121 (1986) (“A default judgment is a judgment entered against a defendant
who has failed to timely plead in response to an affirmative pleading.”). By failing
to contest the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant effectively admits liability, making it
appropriate for the court to enter a default judgment. Id.
{¶13} “Conversely, if the defendant has appeared, ‘the trial court must, by
virtue of Civ.R. 55(A), afford [the defendant] seven days’ notice of the hearing on
the motion for default judgment before entering judgment.’” (Emphasis added.)
Dietrich v. Dobos, 2014-Ohio-4023, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.), quoting Ohio Valley Radiology
Assoc. at 121. If a defendant has appeared in the matter, “[c]ompliance with the
seven-day notice requirement is mandatory.” Id.
{¶14} When applying the notice requirement of Civ.R. 55(A), courts
generally construe the term “appeared” liberally. Id. at ¶ 11. See also Am.
Communs. of Ohio, Inc. v. Hussein, 2011-Ohio-6766, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.) (noting that
“‘the term is not necessarily limited to formal appearances and submissions’”),
quoting Columbus Mgt. Co. v. Nichols, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 4076, *6 (10th Dist.
-6-Case No. 8-26-06
Aug. 4, 1992). Typically, an appearance occurs when a party submits a presentation
to the court by some overt act. Dietrich at ¶ 11. “Absent a formal filing, a defendant
may ‘appear’ through informal contacts with the plaintiff or the court that clearly
express an intention to defend the lawsuit.” Id. Indeed, “‘[w]here a party becomes
aware by means of informal contacts, correspondence or negotiations that the
opposing party intends to actively defend the suit, this constitutes an appearance
which requires seven days advance notice to that party before a default judgment
may be taken.’” Am. Communs. of Ohio at ¶ 11, quoting Columbus Mgt. Co. at *7-8.
{¶15} However, even where an informal contact may qualify as an
appearance, the contact must be communicated to the court or otherwise reflected
in the record before the default judgment so the trial court can determine whether
Civ.R. 55(A)’s notice requirement has been triggered. See GMAC Mtge., LLC v.
Blazetic, 2014-Ohio-5617, ¶ 35 (11th Dist.). An alleged informal appearance that
is neither directed to the trial court nor made part of the trial-court record cannot
supply a basis for reversal on appeal, because a reviewing court may consider only
what was before the trial court. See Wells Fargo Bank, 2012-Ohio-3782, ¶ 11 (9th
Dist.); Accettola v. Big Sky Energy Inc., 2014-Ohio-1340, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.).
{¶16} On appeal, Bulluck contends that she made an “appearance” in this
matter by engaging in out-of-court discussions with Cross Country Mortgage to find
a resolution through refinancing. While informal settlement negotiations can
-7-Case No. 8-26-06
constitute an appearance under the liberal standard discussed above, it is a bedrock
principle of appellate review that this court is strictly limited to the record that was
before the trial court. See Am. Communs. of Ohio at ¶ 11 (reversing default
judgment where the trial court record contained actual evidence of informal
negotiations between the parties); Bigler v. Haynes, 2025-Ohio-5105, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.)
(“‘[A] bedrock principle of appellate practice in Ohio is that an appeals court is
limited to the record of the proceedings at trial.’”), quoting Morgan v. Eads, 2004-Ohio-6110, ¶ 13.
{¶17} Here, the trial court record contains no evidence of informal
communications between Bulluck and Cross Country Mortgage. Compare Am.
Communs. of Ohio at ¶ 12 (finding an appearance where evidence of the defendant’s
email request for an extension was placed before the trial court prior to the default
ruling); Accettola at ¶ 14 (determining that the defendant did not make a Civ.R.
55(A) appearance where its communications predated the complaint, were not made
to the trial court, and no later communication or filing indicated an intent to defend
before the default judgment). Instead, Bulluck’s claimed appearance relies entirely
on unsubstantiated assertions about refinance negotiations made in her appellate
brief. See, e.g., Deitz v. Deitz, 2012-Ohio-130, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.) (“Evidence not made
part of the record that is attached to an appellate brief cannot be considered by a
reviewing court.”).
-8-Case No. 8-26-06
{¶18} Since there is no evidence in the trial record that Bulluck appeared
(formally or informally) in the trial court proceedings, the proper avenue for relief
from judgment in this case is a timely Civ.R. 60(B) motion. See Miamisburg Motel
v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 88 Ohio App.3d 117, 127 (2d Dist. 1993) (concluding
that “in a case such as this where a party alleges that it appeared in the action
otherwise than by a filing and was thus entitled to notice of the application of default
judgment, the proper avenue for relief from judgment is a timely Civ.R. 60(B)(5)
motion”). Consequently, without any evidence of an appearance in the record,
Bulluck effectively admitted the allegations in the complaint and was therefore not
entitled to the notice and hearing protections of Civ.R. 55(A). Accord Bank of Am.,
N.A. v. Sullivan, 2015-Ohio-2736, ¶ 13, 15 (3d Dist.).
{¶19} Having concluded that Bulluck was not legally entitled to notice under
Civ.R. 55(A), her related constitutional argument regarding the mailing of that
notice is likewise defeated by the state of the record. “The basic precepts of due
process require that, before granting default judgment against a party, the party must
be afforded a fair hearing on the matter and receive fair notice of the hearing.”
United States Bank Natl. Assn. v. Maxfield, 2016-Ohio-3396, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.).
“However, due process does not require that an interested party receive actual
notice.” (Emphasis in original.) In re Thompkins, 2007-Ohio-5238, ¶ 14. While
due process requires notice methods that are reasonably calculated to actually
inform a party, it does not demand “heroic efforts” to guarantee delivery. Id.
-9-Case No. 8-26-06
{¶20} In Ohio, service of notice by mail pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B) satisfies this
constitutional standard. Service is deemed complete upon mailing, creating a
rebuttable presumption of proper service when the record reflects compliance with
the civil rules. See Kerr Bldgs., Inc. v. Bishop, 2014-Ohio-5391, ¶ 26-28 (3d Dist.);
Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c). Here, the trial court’s docket reflects that the clerk mailed the
notice of the default hearing on February 10, 2026. Because our review is strictly
confined to the trial court record, there is no evidence before this court to rebut the
presumption that service was constitutionally sufficient and complete upon mailing.
{¶21} Finally, Bulluck’s Civ.R. 6(D) argument also fails for a similar
threshold reason. Civ.R. 6(D) applies only when a party “has the right or is required
to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service
of a notice or other document” and the document is served by mail or commercial
carrier service. See Lumbog v. Suansing, 2019-Ohio-1871, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). In other
words, because Bulluck had no right to receive notice of the default motion or
hearing under Civ.R. 55(A), the three-day mailing extension under Civ.R. 6(D) has
no application under the facts presented. See Hover v. O’Hara, 2007-Ohio-3614, ¶
13 (12th Dist.). See also Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs., 28 Ohio St.3d at 120 (“If
the defendant party has failed to appear in the action, a default judgment may be
entered without notice.”).
{¶22} Moreover, even if Bulluck were entitled to notice, the Ohio Supreme
Court has explicitly held that Civ.R. 6(D) applies only to timeframes within which
-10-Case No. 8-26-06
a party is required to act or respond; it does not operate to extend the timeframes in
which a court is permitted to take action or schedule proceedings. See Eggleston v.
Wood, 2025-Ohio-5292, ¶ 11, 16. Consequently, because receiving a notice of a
default hearing does not impose a prescribed period for a party to file a required
response, the three-day extension under Civ.R. 6(D) would be inapplicable here
regardless.
{¶23} For these reasons, Bulluck’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶24} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI and WALDICK, J.J., concur.
-11-Case No. 8-26-06
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is
overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
William R. Zimmerman, Judge
John R. Willamowski, Judge
Juergen A. Waldick, Judge
DATED:
/hls
-12-