Beneficial Ohio, Inc. v. Ellis

{¶ 1} The question before us in this case is whether service upon one defendant in a multidefendant lawsuit is sufficient to consider the action “pending” for purposes of the doctrine of lis pendens, as codified in former R.C. 2703.26. We hold that pursuant to former R.C. 2703.26, once service has been made upon one defendant in a multidefendant lawsuit, the action is “pending” so as to charge third persons with notice of its pendency.

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Edna M. Jarman owned real property described as lots 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 61 of the Ira B. Mackey plat in Vienna…