The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a foreclosure judgment against Kristy Kay Bulluck in the case of Cross Country Mortgage, L.L.C. v. Bulluck, case number 8-26-06. The court's decision, issued on September 14, 2026, confirms that Bulluck did not receive adequate notice of a hearing regarding her mortgage default, which she argued violated her due process rights. This ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of proper notice in foreclosure cases and the court's discretion in handling default judgments.
The dispute began when Bulluck took out a mortgage with Cross Country Mortgage to purchase a home in Lakeview, Ohio. After defaulting on her payments, the mortgage company filed a foreclosure complaint against her in December 2025. Bulluck did not respond to the complaint in a timely manner, leading Cross Country Mortgage to seek a default judgment.
According to court documents, Bulluck executed a promissory note for $147,250 on July 3, 2024, and secured it with a mortgage deed on the same day. However, she defaulted on the loan in February 2025. When Cross Country Mortgage filed for foreclosure, Bulluck failed to respond, prompting the lender to request a default judgment. The trial court granted this request on March 10, 2026, after a hearing where Bulluck was not present.
In her appeal, Bulluck claimed that she did not receive notice of the hearing until the day it was scheduled, which left her without the opportunity to defend herself. She argued that this lack of notice violated her constitutional right to due process. The court noted that Bulluck was representing herself (pro se) and emphasized that pro se litigants are expected to understand legal procedures.
The court's ruling clarified that the trial court had acted within its rights by granting a default judgment. Judge William R. Zimmerman stated, "The law disfavors default judgments," but noted that a defendant's failure to respond to a complaint can lead to such judgments. The court also pointed out that Bulluck had not demonstrated any informal appearance in the case that would require additional notice under Ohio law.
The court explained that, according to Ohio Civil Rule 55(A), a default judgment can be entered if a party fails to respond. However, if a defendant has made an appearance in the case, they are entitled to a seven-day notice before a default judgment is granted. The court found that Bulluck's claims of informal negotiations with Cross Country Mortgage did not qualify as an appearance since there was no evidence presented in the trial record to support her assertions.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the notice provided by mail was sufficient under Ohio law. The court explained that service of notice by mail is deemed complete upon mailing, which creates a presumption of proper service. Since Bulluck did not provide evidence that the notice was not received, the court upheld the trial court's decision.
This ruling has important implications for future foreclosure cases in Ohio. It reinforces the necessity for defendants to respond promptly to legal complaints and highlights the court's strict adherence to procedural rules regarding notice. The decision also serves as a reminder that informal negotiations or discussions do not automatically grant a defendant additional rights in court.
Looking ahead, Bulluck may have limited options for further legal recourse. The court's decision is final unless there are grounds for a further appeal, which would typically require demonstrating a significant legal error or new evidence. Details regarding any potential related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.
The court's affirmation of the default judgment against Bulluck illustrates the complexities of foreclosure proceedings and the critical importance of adhering to legal procedures. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners facing similar challenges.