Opinion ID: 6343695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lundeen’s second prohibition action

Text: {¶ 5} In 2019, Lundeen filed a second prohibition action in the court of appeals, again seeking to prevent the foreclosure sale. The court of appeals dismissed Lundeen’s complaint and denied her motion for reconsideration. Among 2 January Term, 2022 other things, the court of appeals reasoned that her appeal in the foreclosure action constituted an adequate legal remedy. {¶ 6} In March 2020, Lundeen filed both a motion for relief from judgment in the court of appeals and a notice of appeal in this court. {¶ 7} In May 2021, we denied relief in Lundeen’s direct appeal, see Lundeen I, 164 Ohio St.3d 159, 2021-Ohio-1533, 172 N.E.3d 150, reasoning that she had an adequate legal remedy to challenge the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the foreclosure action. In doing so, we rejected Lundeen’s argument that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over her due to an alleged insufficiency of service, reasoning that she had “voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the common pleas court in the foreclosure action by filing a Civ.R. 12(B) motion to dismiss without asserting insufficiency of service or lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense.” Id. at ¶ 20. We also concluded that Lundeen’s reliance on Civ.R. 3(A), which provides that a “civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, if service is obtained within one year from such filing,” did not present a question concerning the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ 23-24. {¶ 8} And in July 2021, the court of appeals denied Lundeen’s March 2020 motion for relief from judgment. The court of appeals determined that Lundeen’s motion lacked merit because she was challenging personal jurisdiction rather than subject-matter jurisdiction, had an adequate legal remedy, and had waived the defense of lack of service. The court of appeals also cited our decision in Lundeen