By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of this decision is limited to the ca s e a n d p a r t i es p u r

s u a n t t o 6 th C i r
. B

A P L B R 8 0 1 3 -1 (b). S

ee a l s o 6 th C i r
. B

A P L B R 8 0 1 0 -1 (c).
F ile Nam e: 08b0015n.06 BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

I n re: L OUI S G. FUSCO, J R. and TON IL . FUSCO,

De bto rs
.

________________________________________ No. 08-8028 COUNTRYWI DE HOME L OANS, I NC., Ap pe lla nt,

v. MYRON N. TERL ECKY, TRUSTEE,

Appellee

. Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court fo r t he Southe rn

Di str ic t of

Oh io at Co lum

bu s. No. 07-55828. Argued: August 12, 2008
Dec ided and F iled: September 19, 2008
B e fo re : F UL TO N, GR EG G, and PAR SON S, B ank

ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________ CO UN SEL
ARG UED: Nathan L . Swehla, L ERNER, SAMP SON & ROTHFUSS, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. My

ron N. Te rlec ky , STRI P, HOPPER S, L EI THART, McGRATH & T ERL ECKY, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. O N B RI E F: Nathan L . Sw eh l a, L E R NER , SAMPS ON & RO TH F USS , Ci nc inn a ti, Oh io, fo r A pp e lla nt. My ro n N . T e rl e c ky , J ame s A . Co uti nh o, STR I P, HOPPERS , L EI THART, McGRATH & T ERL ECKY, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee

.- 2- __________________ OP IN ION

____________________ MARCI A PHI L L I PS P ARSONS, Chief B ankruptc y Appellate Pane l J udg e. Country wide Ho me L oa

ns , I nc . (“ Countr

y wi de ” ) ap pe a ls an or de r of the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt de nyingits mot ion to
vacate an e arlier

order authorizing the truste e’s sa le of re al estate fre e and c lear of liens, claims, and encumbr ance s. For the following rea sons, we af firm the bankr

uptcy court’s or der.

I. ISS UE ON AP P EAL The issue in this appea l is whether the ba nkruptcy court a bused its discret i o n in denying Country wide re lief under

Rule 60(b) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e.
II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW We have jurisdiction to decide this appeal. The United States District Court for the Southern Di str ic t of Oh io h a s a

uth or ize d ap pe a ls to th is Pa ne l, a nd ne ith e r p art

y ha s ti me ly

e le c te d to have thi s appea l hear d by

the district c ourt. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(6), ( c)( 1). A fina l order of the bankr uptcy court may be appealed a s of rig ht pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) . The ba nkruptcy court’s or der denying Country

wide’s motion to vacate the order to sell proper ty is a final, appe alable or der. In re Bev er , 300 B.R. 262, 264 (B .A.P. 6th Cir. 2003)

. Howeve r, “‘a n appea l from denial of

Rule 60(b) relief does not br ing up the under ly ing judg ment for r eview.’ ” Amernational Indus., Inc . v. Ac tionTungsram, Inc. , 9 2 5 F. 2 d 9 7 0 , 9 7 5 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Peak e v. First Nat’l Bank &Trust Co. , 71 7 F .2 d 1 01 6, 10 20 (6 th C ir . 1 98 3) ); see also Browder v. D ir., Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7, 98 S. Ct . 556, 560 (1978).
The ba nkruptcy court’s de nial of re lief under Rule 60(b) is revie wed for abuse of discre tion. In re Be ver , 300 B.R. at 264. “ An abuse of discretion occur s only when the tr ial court re lies upon clea rly err oneous finding s of fa ct or whe n it improperly applies the lawor uses a

n err oneous leg al standard.” In re Gasel Transp. Li nes, Inc

. , 3 2 6 B. R

. 6 8 3 , 6 8 5 (B

. A. P

. 6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Schmidt

v . Bog gs ( In re Bo gg

s) , 246 B.R. 265, 267 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2000)) . “Unde r this standard, we cannot
reve rse unless we have a definite and firm convic tion that the trial court committed a c lear err or of- 3-

judgme nt in its c onclusion it r eac hed upon we ighingthe re levant fa ctors.” In re Cohara, , 3 24 B .R. 2 4 , 2 6 (B

. A. P

. 6 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g In re Bartee , 317 B.R 362, 365 (B .A.P. 9th Ci r. 2004)) . The qu e sti on is “ wh e the r a

re a so na ble pe rs on

c ou ld ag ree with th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s de c isi on ; if

re asonable persons could diff er a s to the issue, then there is no abuse of discr etion.” I n r e EaglePicher I ndus., Inc. , 285 F.3d 522, 529 ( 6th Cir. 2002).
Where re lief fr om a def

ault judgme nt is sought under Rule 60(b) ( 4 ) , howeve r, the ba nkruptcy court’s de cision is reviewe d de novo bec ause Rule 60( b)(4) authorizes relief from a judg ment wher e the judg ment is void for lack of jurisdiction. Burrell v. He nderson , 434 F.3d 826, 8 3 1 (6 t h C ir. 2006). “U nder a de novo standard of revie w, t he reviewing court decides an issue independe ntly of, and without defe renc e to, t he trial c ourt’s dete rmination.” Me nn inge r v
. Ac c re dite d H om e Le nd e rs ( In re M orgeson) , 3 71 B .R. 79 8, 80 0 (B.A. P

. 6t h Cir. 20 07 ). De nyinga mot ion to v a c a te a

vo id judgme nt is a per se abuse of discretion. Burrell v. He nderson, 434 F.3d at 831.

III . F AC TS
On J anuar

y 10, 2003, L ouis and Toni Fusc o (“D ebtors”) executed a promissory note in the

a mou nt o f $ 74,0 00 and g ra

nte d a mor tg a g e to C ountr

y wi de on c e rt a in r e a l pr op e rt

y loc a te d in Col umb us , O hio (“ Pr op e rt y ” ). On Janu ary 17 , 2 00 3, the mo rt g a g e wa s r e c or de d in the F ra nk lin County Clerk’s off

ice.
On J uly 27, 2007, the Debtor s filed a voluntar y p et i t i o n fo r re lief under chapte r 7 of the B ank ru ptc y Cod e
. Th e y lis te d the Pr op e rt y a s an as se t enc umb e re d by tw o mor tg a g e s: t he fi rs t in fa vor of Co un tr

y wi de in t he a mou nt o f $ 76 ,3 27 , a

nd the se c on d in

fa vo r o f F ra

nk lin Cr e dit M an a g e m e n ti nt h e a m o u n to f $ 4 8 , 8 4 1

. O nA u g u s t2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , C o u n t r yw i d e t h r o u g h i t s a t t o r

n e y, Ca se y M. Cantr ell-Sw art z (“ Cantr e ll- Swa rt z”) , f ile d a mot ion fo r r e lie f f

ro m st ay to p ro c e e d w ith its state court re medies to fore close upon the Prope rty . The ba nkruptcy court de nied that motion be c a us e it h a d n ot b e e n ser

ve d upo n the De bto rs ’ attor ne y . Cantr e ll- Swa

rt z the n f ile d a nd pr op e rl y
serve d a sec ond motion for stay relief on behalf

o f C o untry

wide. The chapte r 7 trustee , My ron Terle cky (“Tr ustee” ), objec ted to the motion on the basis that the mortg ag e wa s avoidable pur suant to 11 U.S.C. § 547 because it fa iled to include a leg al desc ription of the Property

. Whil e the stay re l i ef

motion was pending , the Trustee filed on Oc tober 25, 2007, a n application for

authority to employ a rea ltor/auctionee r to se ll the Property at public auc tion. TheO n M ar ch 20 , 200 8, t he bankr upt cy cour t en t er ed an ag r eed order hol di ng Co un t r y wi de’ s mo t i on f or r el i ef 1 f r om s t ay i n a bey anc e u nt i l t he T r us t ee’ s adver s ar y procee di ng ag ai ns t Co un t r y wi de t o avoi d t he mo r t gag e t hat was f i l ed o n Feb ruary 7, 20 0 8 , was r esolved. T he ad vers ary pro ceed i ng remains pe nd i ng.

- 4- application wa s approve d wi t h o u t oppositi on by order enter ed Nove mber 27, 2007. B oth the application and orde r we re se rved on Cantr ell-Swartz . Also while Country wide’s stay

relief motion was pe nding, the Trustee filed on Nove mber 13, 2007, a motion to s ell the Property fre e and c lear of all li ens , c la ims and

e nc umb ra

nc e s, a lon g wi th a

no tic e of

pu bli c sa le of

re a l e state (“ Sa le Motion”). The Sale Motion stated that the Debtors had valued the Property at $95,000, provided that
any lie n w ou ld a

tta c h to the sa le pr oc e e ds purs ua nt to 1 1 U .S. C. § 36 3( f) , a nd dis c los e d th e te rm s and conditions of the proposed auction sale. Unfortunately , the Sale Motion incorre ctly listed the date of the auc tion as J anuar

y 29, 2007, rathe r than J anuar y 29, 2008. The Sale Motion was se rved upon Country

wide, althoug h not to the attention of any particula r individual, and spec ified that any ob je c tio n to the pr op os e d s a le mus t be fi le d w ith in 2 0 d ay s.
On Novembe r 29, 2007, prior to the e x piration of t h e S al e M otion’s objection period, the bankruptc y

court he ld a hea

ring on Country

wide’s motion for stay

relief

. At that hear ing, the 1 Trustee advised the c ourt that he would be filing a n avoidanc e ac tion aga i n s t Country wide. The p art i e s a l s o d i s c u s s e d

t h e p e n d i n g S a l e M o t i o n , an d i tw a s n o t e d

t h a tC o u n t r

yw i d e ’ s a t t o r

n e y, Cantrell-Swar

tz, i nadver

tently had not bee n serve d with the motion. The day afte r the hear ing, the T r u s te e f il e d a s u p p le me n ta l c e rti f

ic a te e v id e n c in g s e r

v ic e o f th e Sa le M o ti o n u

p o nCa n tr e ll

- Sw artz

. No objection or r esponse wa s filed t o the S ale Moti on. On J anuar y 4, 2008, the bankr

uptcy
c ourt e nte re d a n o rd e r g ra

nti ngthe Sa le Mo tio n w hil e no tin g that a ll p art ie s h a d b e e n se rv e d w ith the motion and no objection had be en filed. The order was ser ved upon Cantre ll-Swartz

. On J anuar y 29, 2008, the Trustee ’s re altor/auc tioneer c onducted a n auction of t

h e Pr o p e r ty in a c c o r dance with the order

. On F e br ua ry 29 , 2 00 8, the su c c e ssf

ul b idd e r at th e a

uc tio n c los e d o n th e sa le of the Pr op e rt

y
c on sis te nt w ith the te rm s of the c ourt ’s or de r a pp ro vin g the Sa le Mo tio n. Th e Tr us te e su bs e qu e ntl y filed a r eport of sa le stating that the Property sold for $47,000 with the e state netting $44,624.64 afte r
sa le e xpe ns e s.
Al so on F e br ua ry 29 , 2 00 8, Countr

y wi de fi le d a

mot ion to v a c a te the or de r g ra

nti ngthe Sa le Mo tio n p ur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of B ank ru ptc y Pr oc e dure 90 24 , w hic h in c or po ra te s F e de ra l Ru le- 5-

of Civil Procedur e 60. Country wide allege d that the order failed to comport wit h due proc ess and

was void be cause the Sale Motion did not c omply with S.D. Ohio L ocal Ba nkruptcy Rule 6 0 0 4 -1

a s it la c ke d th e Pr op e rt

y ’s le g a l de sc ri pti on , c on ta ine d a n in c or re c t date of

sa le , d id n ot s tate the sa le price , and provide d no basis for the sug g ested pric e. F urthermor e, ac cordingto Country wide, the Sale Motion failed to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) (3) because the s ale price was not in excess of the ag g reg ate va lue of liens on the Prope rty

. Th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt de nie d the mot ion to va c a te , fin din g that th e mot ion wa s mo ot b e c a

us e the sa le ha d b e e n c on summate d. F ur the rm or e , the c ourt fo un d that Countr y wi de ’s mot ion

to v a c a te failed to a

rti cu l at e a suff

icient basis upon which to grant the r equeste d relief beca use it did not

a dd re ss a ll o f the ne c e ssa

ry e le me nts fo r se tti ng a sid e a de fa ult jud g me nt es ta

bli sh e d by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appea ls in United Coin Meter Co. v. Se aboard Coastl ine R.R. , 705 F.2d 839, 845 (6th Cir. 1983). This timely

appea l followed.
IV . D ISC USS ION Country wide soug ht relief f

rom the bankr

uptcy court’s de fa

u lt o r d e r gr a nti n g th e Sa le Motion pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Ba nkruptcy Procedur e 9024, which make s Rule 60 of the F eder al Rules of C i v i l P ro cedur e applica ble in bankruptc y

case s. Specifica lly , Country wide soug ht relief unde r Rul e 60 (b )( 4) and

(6 ). I n p e rt ine nt p art , Ru le 60 pr ov ide s: (b) Gr ound s for Relief from a F inal Ju dgm ent, Order , or P roce eding. On motion and just terms, the cour

t may relieve a par

ty or its leg al re prese nt at i v e fr o m a final jud g me nt, or de r, or

pr oc e e din g fo r t

he fo llo wi ngre a so ns :

. . . . (4) the judg ment is void; [ or] (6) a ny other re ason that justifies relief

. When Ru l e 6 0 i s invoked to set aside a defa ult judgment, a tr ial court must find that one of the sp e c if ic re qu ir e me nts of

Rul e 60 (b ) i s met and c on sid e r the e qu ita ble fa c tor s r e le va

nt t o g oo d c a

us e for se tting aside a default judgme nt under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 55( c). See Thompson v

. Am. HomeAssurance Co. , 95 F.3d 429, 433 ( 6th Cir. 1996). These e quitable fa ctors ar e:

“ (1 ) whe the r c ulp a

ble c on du c t of

the de fe nd ant le d to the de fa ult , ( 2) wh e the r t

he de fe nd ant h a s a meritorious defe nse, and (3) whether the plaintiff wil l b e p re j udiced.” Bu rre ll v. He nderson , 434I n i t s r e pl y br i e f , Cou n t r y w i de s t a t e s t h a t i t “ pr op e r l y br i n g s t h e i s s u e s of du e pr oc e s s r e g a r di n g t he O r der 2 gr ant i ng t he M ot i on t o Sel l an d t he s al e p r oces s b ef ore t hi s P ane l o n a pp eal ” a s i t s “ M ot i on t o V aca t e c l ear l y i ndi cat es tha t t h e O rd e r g ra n ting the M o tio n to S e ll fails to c o m p ly with d u e p ro c e ss a n d is v o id .” (A p p e llan t’s R e p ly B r. a t 6 .) W h ile it i s tru e tha t C o u n tryw id e a sse rte d la c k o f d u e p ro c e ss i n its m o tio n to va c a te , C o u n tryw id e d id no t sp e c ifi c a lly r ai s e t he i s s ue of

s er vi ce of

proces s
. R at her , i n i t s mo t i on t o vac at e, Co un t r y wi de as s er t ed t hat t he Sal e M ot i on vi ol at ed due pr oces s becau s e i t di d not gi ve proper not i ce of t he dat e of

t he propo s ed s al e a nd f ai l ed t o com pl y wi t h l ocal r ul es and t he B ank r upt cy Co de.

- 6- F. 3 d at 8 3 1 (q u o t i n g W

aifersong, Ltd. v. Cl assic Music Ve nding , 976 F.2d 290, 292 ( 6th Cir. 1992)); see U nited Coin Meter Co. v. Seaboard Coastline R.R. , 705 F.2d at 845.
I n th is a pp e a l, C ountr

y wi de a sse rt s th a t t he ban kr up tc y c ourt e rr e d in g ra nti ngthe Sa le Motion and err ed in denying its motion to vacate . Be fore the bankr uptcy court, Country

wide ar g ued that its mot ion to vacate should be g rante d beca use the Sale Motion di d not contain a leg al de sc ri pti on

of the Pr op e rt

y , h a d a n in c or re c t dat e of

sa le , f a ile d to lis t a

sa le pr ic e , a

nd g a ve no ba sis for a sug g ested pric e. Country wide also a sserted that t h e S al e M o tion had not complied with 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(3) beca

use the sale price was not in excess o f t h e aggr ega t e value of liens on the Pr op e rt y . B e fo re thi s pa

ne l, Countr

y wi de ra ise s the a dd iti on a l argume nt t hat it wa s n ot s e rv e d w ith the Sale Motion in acc o r d a n c e with Fede ral Rule of B ankruptc y Procedur e 7004(b) (3), a

nd there fore , Country wide wa s denied due proce ss and the judg ment is void. Each of th es e issues will be addre ssed in turn.
A. Servic e of Sale Motion Be cause Country

wide did not raise the service issue in the bankruptc y court, we would not 2 ordinarily addre ss it. See Heavrin v. Schilling ( In re Tripl e S Rests., Inc.) , 5 19 F .3 d 5 75 , 5 79 (6 th Cir . 2 00 8) (f

ind inga ttorney wai ved ar g ume nts fo c us e d o n a lle g e d la c k o f n oti c e and du e pr oc e ss pr ior to r e c e ivi ngsanc tio ns wh e re he did no t r a ise the m in

the c ourt be low ); see also United States v. 51 Piec es of Real Prop., Roswell, N.M. , 1 7 F .3 d 130 6, 13 14 (1 0th Cir . 1 99 4) (f

a ilure to o bje c t to
c ourt ’s e xer c ise of pe rs on a l jur isd ic tio n in the fi rs t re sp on se wa ive s d e fe ns e ); Mu e lle r v. Ha ll ( In re Pa rk e r) , 368 B.R. 86, 2007 WL 1376081,*5 (B .A.P. 6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished tabl e o p inion) (ar g ument based on ine ffe ctive ser vice wa ived by fa i l u re t o timely raise issue) . Howeve r, if the bankruptc y

court lac ked jurisdiction beca use of improper service , the def ault judgme nt is void and must be set aside unde r Rule 60(b)( 4). Days Inn W orldwide, Inc. v. Pate l , 4 45 F .3 d 8 99 , 9 07 (6 th Ci r. 20 06) (

jud g me nt t

hat sh ow s a

jur isd ic tio na l de fe c t on

the fa c e of

the re c or d is vo id) ; I

n re Maloni , 282 B.R. 727 (B .A.P. 1st Ci r. 2002) ( failure to proper l y ef fe ct s ervic e under

rules of pr oc e dure de pr ive s bankr up tc y c ourt of pe rs on a l jur isd ic tio n an d an y or de r e nte re d b y

the c ourt isIn Sa uci er , s er vi ce of an adve r s ar y comp l ai nt was at t emp t ed upon a do mest i c c orporat e d ef endan t , wh i ch had 3

n o t p revi o usl y ap p eared i n t he case, by ma i l i ng i t ad d res sed t o t he at t ent i o n of t he “ o f f i ce m anager. ” C o up l ed wi t h t he f ac t t h at t h e l i s t ed addr es s w as i n correct , the b ankr u pt cy c ou r t f ou n d t h i s i n s u f

f i ci en t u n der Rul e 7004. “ N at i on wi de s e r v i c e of

pr oc e s s by f

i r s t cl a s s ma i l i s a r a r e pr i v i l e g e w h i c h c a n dr a s t i c a l l y r e du c e t h e c os t s a n d d e l a y of l i t i g a t i on
. As a p riv ileg e , i t i s n o t t o b e a b u se d o r t a k e n ligh tly. W h e re the a lter n a tive to se rv ic e b y m a il is hir ing a p ro c e ss se rv e r to s er ve t he papers i n per s on, i t s eems l i ke a s mal l bur den t o r equi r e l i t er al com pl i anc e wi t h t he r ul e. ” I n r e Sau ci er , 366 B .R . at 7 8 4

.

- 7- the re fo re vo id) ; se e als o I n r e Che ss , 2 68 B .R. 15 0, 15 5 (Bankr. W.D . T e nn . 2 00 1) (“ Un de r R ule 60 (b )( 4) , if

a jud g me nt i s v oid , it

mus t be va c a te d. L a c k of no tic e and su ff ic ie nt s e rv ic e of

pr oc e ss le a din g ult imate ly

to l a c k o f d

ue pr oc e ss pr op e rl y

re nd e rs a jud g me nt v oid .” ). As a

re su lt, we wi ll consider the issue of service in this instance, despite Country wide’s failure to r ai s e i t i n t he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt

. Pur su ant to F e de ra l Rul e of B ank ru ptc y Pr oc edu re 60 04 (c), a mot ion fo r a uth or ity to s e ll proper ty fre e and c lear

of liens must be made in a ccor dance wi t h Fe dera l Rule of Ba nkruptcy Procedur e 9014 and se rved on pa rties who have liens and other interests in the prope rty to be sold. Se rv i c e o f s u c h a m o t i o n , p u r s u an t t o R u l e 9 0 1 4 , s h a l l b e m a d e i n t h e m an n e r p r o v i de d b y Rul e 7004. Under

Rule 7004(b)(3) , service by first class mail may be made upon a domesti c cor poration, such as Country

wide, “by mailing a

copy o f t he summons and complaint to the attention of a n of fi c e r, a mana g ingor

g e ne ra l a g e nt, or to any oth e r a g e nt a uth or ize d by a

pp oin tme nt o r b y

law t o
rec eive se rvice of proc ess . . . .” Country wide asse rts that the Sale Motion was not p ro p er l y serve d upon it because the Trustee ’s ce rtificate of ser vice shows that it was a dd re s s ed solely to Country

wide and not to the attention of an of

fice r or ag ent. Citing to Sa uc ie r v . Ca pitol O ne(

In re Sa uc ie r) , 366 B.R. 780, 784 (B ankr. N .D. Ohio 2007), Country wide asse rts that literal compl i an ce with the rule is re quired. 3 Countr y wi de c on c lud e s, the re fo re , that be c a us e it wa s no t pr op e rl y se rv e d wi th the Sa le Mo tio n it

wa s de pr ive d of du e pr oc e ss and the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt e rr e d in e nte ri ngthe or de r a

pp ro vin g the Sa le Motion.
The Tr ustee initially

counter s that the issue of ser vice ha s been w aived be ca u s e i t was not
ra ise d in the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt

. An tic ipatin g , how e ve r, that we may a dd re ss the iss ue ne ve rt

he le ss, he argue s f

ur the r t hat pu rs ua nt to the loc a l ru le s of c ourt pr op e r se rv ic e wa s e ff e c te d wh e n th e Sa le M o ti o n w a s s e r v e d b y ma il u p o nCo u n tr

y w id e ’ s c o u n s e l wh o h a d

a p p e ar e d in th e c a s e o ns e v e r al

occa sions. L ocal Bankr

uptcy Rule 9013-3(c ) for the S outhern District of Ohio provides, in pertinent- 8-

part, “ [i ]f a party other than a debtor is r epre sented by an attorne y , service need only be made on that party ’s at t o rn ey .” More over, a ccor ding to the T rustee, Rule 7004( b)(3) permits service on Country wide’s c ounsel bec ause she was a n “ag ent authorized by appointment” as contemplated by that rule.
I n response , Country

wide counte rs that Cantrell-Swa rtz had not fi l ed a for

mal notice of appea ranc e in the bankruptcy case at t he ti me of service of t he S ale Moti on on her a nd in fac t did not file one until Fe bruar

y 28, 2008, afte r t he sale of the Proper ty . Acc ording ly , Country

wide maintains that service upon Cantrell-Swar tz was insufficient as service on Country wide under Rule 7004(c)

. Ba sed on our de novo revie w, we find no lack of due proce ss in this case
. Attorney s may be authorized to acc ept servic e of pr ocess e ither expressly or impliedly

. In re Villar , 317 B.R. 88, 93 (B .A .P. 9th

Cir . 2 00 4) ; see also Rubin v. Pringle ( In re Foc us Media, Inc .) , 387 F .3 d 1 07 7, 10 82 (9 th Cir. 2004) (holding that implied authorization to acc ept s ervic e is permitted under the bankr uptcy rules wh ere service is made in an a dversa ry proce eding on a par

ty ’s attorne y

in the underlying bankruptc y

case ). “To f

ind an implied ag ency , courts look at all the circ umstances under which the de fe nd ant a

pp oin te d th e a tto rn e y

to m e a sure the e xten t of

the a uth or ity that th e cl ie nt i nte nd e d to confe r.” Ms . I

nte rp re t v . R aweDr uc k

-u nd -V e re dlu ng s- Gm bH ( In re Ms . I

nte rp re t) , 222 B.R. 409, 41 6 ( B ank r. S.D .N .Y . 1 99 8) ; see also Rondon v . Honigman ( In re Honigman) , 141 B.R. 76, 78 (B ankr. E.D . Pa. 1992) (se rvice upon fore ign c orporation by mailing summ ons and complaint to law firm was pr oper se rvice wher e firm r epre sented c orporation in main bankruptc y case ); Reisman v. First N.Y . Bank for Bus. (

In re R ei sman ) , 139 B.R. 797, 801 (B ankr. S.D.N.Y . 1992) (f inding i mp l i e d age n cy fo r s erv i ce wh en d ef

en d an tt o o k

an ac t i v e r o l e i nre l at edb an krup t cy ca s e t h ro u gh counsel). Cf. Y

o rk v. B ank of Am., N.A. ( In re York) , 291 B.R. 806 (B ankr. E.D . Tenn. 2003) (ac knowledg ing attorney

can be impliedly

authorized to acc ept servic e but finding at torney who repr esente d mortg ag ee in state court for eclosure action not nec essar ily mortg ag ee’ s ag ent for se rvice of proc ess in bankruptc y

case ). As one c ourt explained: There is no fea

r . . . that ser

vice of the summons and complaint upon [t he attorney ] would not be broug ht home to eac h principal. This is at times a matter of c on cern in the se pr ob le ms o f s e rv ic e of pr oc e ss t hr ou g h c la ime d a

uth or ize d a g e nt. That ser vice of proce ss upon their lawy er w ould b ri n g notice of the lawsuit to [ the client] seems bey ond argument . . . . Un ite d S tates v . D av is , 38 F.R.D. 424, 425-26 ( N.D.N.Y. 1965)

.- 9-

Applying the se principles to the prese nt c ase, even though Ca ntrell-Swar

tz had not filed a fo rm a l no tic e of

a pp e ara nc e on be ha lf of Countr y wi de a t th e time s he wa s se rv e d w iththe Sa le M o t i o n , s h e h a d

f i l e d o nC o u n t r

yw i d e ’ s b e h a l f

tw o m o t i o n s f

o r r e l i e f f r o ms t ay as to the same Property at issue and had a ppear ed at the he aringon the second motion at which the Sale Motion

and se rv ic e of

the Sa le Mo tio n o n h e r w a s e xplic itl y dis c us se d. I n the a

bs e nc e of any e vid e nc e to the contra ry , Cantrell-Swar

tz’s actions strong ly sug g est that she had the i mplied authority to acc ept on Country

wide’s be half ser

vice of any motions pertaining to the Prope rty

. More sig nificantly , howeve r, we must note that Country wide does not a

rg ue that it did not

re c e ive no tic e , o nly

that th e no tic e it r e c e ive d d id n ot te c hn ic all y co m p l y wi th Rule 7004(b)(3)

. Howeve r, notice is ade quate whe n it is shown that a l t h o u g h a par ty did not rece ive forma l notice, actua l notice was rec eived. Se e Cre ditor s Comm . of Park Nur

sin g Ctr. , Inc . v. Sa mu e ls ( In re Pa rk Nursing C tr., Inc.) , 7 6 6 F. 2 d 2 6 1 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 5 ) ( ci t i n g Mullane v. Cent. Hanov er Bank & Trust Co. , 33 9 U .S. 306, 70 S

. Ct . 6 52 (1 95 0) (h old ingthat a ru le of no tic e in b ank

ru ptc y is a de qu a te if

re a so na bly c a lc ulated to achi eve ac tua l no tic e and a pr oc e dure is a

va ila ble fo r o ne wh o f

a ils to
re c e ive no tice to se t a sid e or de r; du e pr oc e ss i s a ff or de d b y su c h a ru le )) ; se e als o In re Glinz , 66 B .R. 88 (D . N .D . 1 98 6) (h old ingtha t un se c ur e d cr e dit or s com mitte e wa s n ot e nti tle d to re lie f d e sp ite lack of formal notice of hea

ring on settlement wher e attorne y repr esentingcommittee was pr esent and no showing was made that he could have ma de any argument with 20 day s notice by mail that he c ou ld n ot h a ve ma de wi th a c tua l no tic e re c e ive d at he ari ng ). “ I n bank ru ptc y , a p ro c e dura l r

ule requiringnotice is ade quatel y co m p l i ed with by proce dure w here by

a par ty not rec eiving formal notice does rec eive actual noti ce and has some available r emedy to set aside the judg ment.” In re Tot h , 61 B.R. 160, 166 (B ankr. N.D. I ll. 1 9 8 6 ) ( ci t i n g In re Park Nursing C tr., Inc. , 766 F.2d at 263)).
Co u n tr y w id e w a s g iv e n mo r e th an a d e qu a te n o ti c e o f th e Sa le M o ti o n
. T h e r ecor d shows that both Countr

y wi de its e lf and its c ouns e l, whic h h a d a pp e are d in

the c a se tw ic e , w e re se rv e d w ith the Sa le Mo tio n. I n a dd iti on , c ouns e l f or Countr y wi de , it s im

pli e d a g e nt f

or se rv ic e , w a s se rv e d w ith both the application for

authority to e mploy rea ltor/auctionee r and the order g ranting same. We are convince d that Country

wide re ceive d due proc ess in this case.Coun t r y wi de as s er t s t h at i t s i n t er es t i n t h e pr oper t y w as n ot a dequ at el y pr ot ec t ed. 4

- 10- B. Merits of Sale Motion Cou ntr y wi d e a s s e rt s t h a tt h e S a l e M o t i o ni t s e l f d i d n o tc o mp l y

w i t h § 3 6 3 ( f

) ( 3 ) , R u le 6004(c) , and S.D. Ohio L ocal B ankruptc y Rule 600 4 -1 (b )( 1 ). Be cause “an a ppeal f rom denial of Rul e 60 (b ) re lie f doe s not br ingup the un de rl yingjud g me nt f or re vie w, ” thi s is su e is n ot p ro pe rl y befor e us. Amernational Indus., Inc . v. Ac tion-Tungsram, Inc. , 9 2 5 F. 2 d at 9 7 5 (q u o t i n g Peak

e v. First Nat’l Bank &Trust Co. , 7 17 F .2 d at 10 20 ); se e als o Browder v. Direc tor, Dep’t of Corrections 434 U.S. at 263 n.7 (“The Court of Appea ls ma y revie w the ruling only for abuse of d i s cr eti on, howeve r, and a

n appea l from denial of Rule 60(b) re lief does not bringup the under ly ing judg ment for r eview.” ). Ac cording ly , any relief on this basis must be denie d.
C. M e rit s o f M oti on to V ac ate Country wide’s pr imary

argument in support of its posit ion that the bankruptc y court e rre d in d e nyingits mot ion

to v a c a te the sa le or de r i s, again , th at it w a s n ot p ro pe rl y se rv e d. I n th is instance, it asse rts that it was no t p ro p erly serve d with the order

g rantingthe Sale Motion and there fore , the order is void for failure to comport with due proc ess. The r ecor d shows, howeve r, that the orde r wa s serve d upon Country wide’s c ounsel. For

the re asons pre viously

discussed, ser

vice up on Countr y wi de ’s c ouns e l w a s su ff

ic ie nt a nd c omp or te d w ithdu e pr oc e ss.
F ina lly , Co un tr

y wi de argue s that the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt e rr e d in

a dd re ssi ngthe thr e e e qu ita

ble f a c t o r s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d

w h e nr e l i e f

i s s o u g h tu n d e r

R u l e 6 0 f r o m e n t r y o f a d e f a u l tj u d g m e n t

. In
re g ard to t he fi rs t f a c tor , w he the r t

he pla int if

f wil l be pr e

jud ic e d, Countr

y wi de a sse rt s tha t the re wi ll b e n o p r e ju d ic e to th e T r

u s te e “ in li g h t o f th e p o te n ti a l h ar

mf u l r e s u lt th a t C o u n tr

y w id e w o u ld

r e a li ze i nh a v i n g t h e s u

b j e c tr e a l e s t a t e s o l d

f r e e an d c l e ar o f i t s l i e n
. ” ( A p p e l l an t ’ s B r
. a t1 7

. ) In anticipation of the Tr

ustee’s a rg ument that he will be pre judiced bec ause the Property has bee n sold, Countr y wi de states th at “th e Tr

us te e be ars re sp on sib ili ty fo r t he la c k o f d

ue pr oc e ss a ff

or de d to Country wide . .

. . The Trustee cannot now asser t that he will be prejudice d when his own a ctions

cre ated the de ficienc ies rende ring the Order void.” (Appellant’s B r. at 17-18.) . Wit h respe ct to the

se c on d f a c tor , w he the r t

he de fe nd ant h a s a

me ri tor io us defens e , Co un tr y wi de a sse rt s th a t it established such a defe nse under 11 U.S.C. § 363(e) and wa s preve nted from pr esentingits secure d 4 lien status as a defe nse to the sale, resulting in insuff icient funds to satisfy its mortg ag e lien. And

a s to the thi rd f

act or , c ulp a

ble c on du c t, C ountr

y wi de argue s it

wa s n ot i ts c on du c t th a t r e su lte d inB e c a u se w e fi n d tha t C o u n tryw id e d id n o t a d d re ss th e ne c e ssa ry e le m e n ts o f p re ju d ic e a n d c u lp a b le c o n d u c t, 5

w e n ee d no t rea ch t he i ssue o f wh ethe r § 3 6 3 (m ), t he “b an kru p t cy m o o t ne ss” rule, ap p l i es.

- 11- the de fa ult jud g ment , bu t rat her the a c tio ns of the Tr us te e in f a ili ngto p ro pe rl y

se rv e the Sa le Motion.
Once ag ain, howeve r, Country wide ar g ues issues which it did not raise before the bankr uptcy court. As the ban k ruptcy court c orre ctly

found, Country

wide fa iled to addre ss the elements of prejudice and culpa

ble conduc t in its motion to vacate. Ac cording ly , County wide is prec luded from

now ra ising these considerations on appeal. In re Triple S Rests., Inc

. , 519 F.3d at 579. 5
V. CO NC LU SION
We find no abuse of

discretion nor a

violation of Country

wide’s due proce ss rig ht. The orde r of the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt de nyingCountr

y wi de re lie f u

nd e r R ule 60 (b ) of the F e de ra l Rule s o f C ivi l Procedur e is AF FI RMED.