Appeals court ordered further review of service validity, leaving the foreclosure judgment otherwise undisturbed.
A foreclosure case that appeared to be over is back in court after an Ohio appeals court raised questions about whether the property owner had been properly notified of the original proceedings. The homeowner, who is serving time for the murder of his wife, lost his Columbus home to a foreclosure initiated by the bank while he was behind bars. But the case resurfaced when a separate dispute erupted over who would get the money after the sheriff's sale produced more than $61,000 in surplus proceeds. The Tenth District Court of Appeals in Ohio on Nov. 10, 2026, reversed a lower court's denial of a motion to reconsider a foreclosure judgment. The court ruled that the owner's later participation in the proceedings could not be grounds for an automatic finding that he had been properly served in the course of the proceedings.
Bank moves forward with foreclosure while homeowner is in jail
The property, located at Noe Bixby Road in Columbus, belonged to Mamadou Diallo, according to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District. He entered into a mortgage with JPMorgan Chase Bank in October 2017. Nationstar Mortgage LLC sued Diallo in May 2023 for mortgage default and foreclosure. US Bank Trust National Association later substituted Nationstar as the plaintiff and filed an amended foreclosure complaint in June 2024. At the time, Diallo was incarcerated at Southeastern Correctional Institution. Court documents show that a first attempt to serve him by certified mail was unsuccessful. A process server later testified that he served the prison's intake officer with the summons and complaint in August 2024. The court docket also shows certified mail delivery to the institution.
Property sold for over $61,000 in surplus funds
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District, said the bank filed a request for a default judgment, which the Franklin County court granted and issued a foreclosure decree on Oct. 21, 2024. The property was then sold at sheriff's auction on April 25, 2025. After the sale, the relevant obligations were paid and there were excess proceeds of $61,060.07. In October 2025, Diallo asked that the surplus be distributed. But the estate of his late wife also filed a request for the money. But the appeals court said Diallo's claim was dismissed by the magistrate because he was convicted of murdering his wife, Fatoumata Diallo, who died in September 2021. Ohio's slayer statute prohibits a person convicted of killing another from profiting from the victim's death. The court therefore awarded the entire surplus to his wife's estate.
Homeowner behind bars challenges his service
Records from the Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District, show Diallo later challenged the foreclosure judgment, saying he never personally received the summons or complaint. He argued the service process was defective and had not been completed within the time limits imposed by Ohio Civil Rule 3(A). He also testified that he did not become aware of the foreclosure proceedings or the sheriff's sale until September 15, 2025. In May 2026, a lower court refused to vacate the judgment. By participating in subsequent proceedings regarding the surplus funds without raising any service concerns, he had waived his objection.
Timing is important, appeals court says
In its Nov. 10 ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District, did not agree with the lower court's reasoning. Before a court can render a judgment that is binding on the parties, the court must first establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the appellate judges said. This can be done by proper service, voluntary submission to jurisdiction before judgment or other conduct evidencing submission to the authority of the court. But the timing of such participation is important. Any post-judgment acts that might have been invalid cannot retroactively cure a jurisdictional defect, the appellate court held. Because Diallo's efforts to claim the surplus were made months after the foreclosure decree, they could not automatically operate as a waiver of his earlier objection to service.
Join conversation
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Case returned for further action
The Tenth District Court of Appeals in Ohio reversed the lower court's ruling and sent the case back to Franklin County for further proceedings. The appeals court, crucially, did not void the bank's service or nullify the foreclosure. Instead, the court told the lower court to consider whether Diallo had been properly served or had otherwise submitted to its jurisdiction before the foreclosure judgment was entered. The appellate court likewise refused to address his distinct claim that he was denied a hearing, because the reversal rendered that issue unnecessary to decide. The November 10 ruling doesn't address the key question of whether service was proper, sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
