[Cite as First Horizon Home Loans v. White , 2011-Ohio-1982.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS, A : DIVISION OF FIRST TENNESSEE : Appellate Case No. 24244 BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION : SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO FIRST : Trial Court Case No. 2010-CV-04513 HORIZON HOME LOAN : CORPORATION : : Plaintiff-Appellee : (Civil Appeal from : ( Common Pleas Court) v. : : TERESA D. WHITE, et al. : : Defendant-Appellant : :

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 22 nd day of April, 2011.

. . . . . . . . . . . ELIZABETH S. FULLER, Atty. Reg. #0081032, Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, LPA, 120 East Fourth Street, 8 th Floor, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee TERESA D. WHITE, 1742 Suman Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45403 Defendant-Appellant, pro se

. . . . . . . . . . . . . BROGAN, J. {¶ 1} Teresa White appeals from the judgme nt of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court in favor of First Horizon Home Loans (hereinafter “First Horizon”). 2

 {¶ 2} In June 2010, First Horizon filed a complain t in foreclosure alleging that White had defaulted in the payment of a promi ssory note which she executed on March 17, 2004 in the amount of $45,400 to First Horizon. First Horizon alleged White was in default for non-payment as of December 1, 2009, and in accord ance with the terms of the note she owed First Horizon $41,645.63 together with interest due thereon. {¶ 3} The complaint alleged that White was immune from personal liability on the note by virtue of her taking bankruptcy. The pl aintiff alleged in a sepa rate count that White executed a mortgage on the real estate lo cated at 1742 Suman Avenue to secure the promissory note and that it was the first lien hol der upon the real estate. First Horizon named a John Doe defendant as current spouse of White in the event she was presently married. The plaintiff also named as defenda nts the State of Ohio Departme nt of Taxation and Greenville National Bank who allegedly had record ed judgment liens against White. {¶ 4} In its prayer for relief, First Horizon requested that the court adjudge it as first lien holder on the subject property, that the mortga ge be foreclosed and the property sold so it could be paid the amount due from White. The plaintiff was not seeking a personal judgment against White for any deficiency that might result from the sale of the property. {¶ 5} On June 28, 2010, White moved the court to extend the time for answer. She requested 28 additional days to answer because sh e said she was seeking an attorney to assist her in contesting the foreclosure. On July 1, 2010, the trial court gran ted White an additional 30 days to answer the complaint. {¶ 6} On July 19, 2010, the Department of Ta xation answered the complaint and disclaimed any interest in th e litigation. When neither Gree nville National Bank nor White 3

 answered the complaint in a timely manner, First Horizon moved on August 2, 2010 for a default judgment. Counsel for First Horiz on certified that she served White and the Greenville Bank with the motion. {¶ 7} On August 9, 2011, the trial court grante d First Horizon’s default motion. The court found that White was in de fault for failing to answer the complaint, and no service was obtained on the alleged John Doe. The court found the allegations in the complaint to be true and ordered that the interest of the defendants in the property be foreclosed and the real estate sold. {¶ 8} On September 1, 2010, White appealed the j udgment entered by the trial court. In her appellate brief, Ms. White contends the tr ial court’s judgment should be overturned because the plaintiff’s complaint included a J ohn Doe defendant allege d to be her husband. She states that she has never married. Also, she argues that she does not owe the Department of Taxation any money and the judgment lien mentioned in the complaint is for Teresa A. White, not Theresa D. White. Lastly, she alleges in her brief that she entered into an agreement on July 19, 2010 with First Horizon to begin a repayment plan for the amount in arrears on the note. She alleges that this agreement was to have ended the foreclosure proceedings. She included a copy of the agreement and a copy of the cashier’s check sent to First Horizon. {¶ 9} For its part First Horizon argues that White was not prejudiced by the naming of a John Doe defendant and the Ohio Departme nt of Taxation. We agree. The John Doe defendant was named in the ev ent White was married so th at her husband’s (if she was married) dower interest could be foreclosed in the litigation. See Huntington Nat’l Bank v. 4

 Ross (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 687. The Department of Taxation answer ed and disclaimed any interest in the legal proceedings. {¶ 10} First Horizon argues that the trial court properly granted its default motion because the alleged Forbearance Agreement was unexecuted and was not presented to the trial court before the defau lt judgment was entered. {¶ 11} We agree with appellee that we may only consider what was presented to the trial court. It is the actions of the trial court we are reviewing. If First Horizon agreed to forbear pursuing the foreclosure action upon recei pt of a signed agreement and two-thousand dollars from White, she may be entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B) . If White did not answer the complaint because of the alleged agreement, this may be excusable neglect under the Rule. Ms. White, of course, would still have to demonstrate she has a meritorious defense to the foreclosure action to present. Antonopoulos v. Eisner (1972), 30 Ohio App.2d 187. {¶ 12} However, based on the record before us the appellant’s a ssignments of error have no merit. The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . GRADY, P.J., and FROELICH, J., concur (Hon. James A. Brogan, retired from the Sec ond District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).

Copies mailed to: Elizabeth S. Fuller Teresa D. White Hon. Gregory F. Singer 5

