counsel of record and any unrepresented party, and DIRECTS the Clerk to post this published opinion at http://www.wvs0Luscourts.gov. 1 . The relevant April, 2001 phone book contained a listing for Linda and Michael Bue-chler at “215 Woodbridge Drive.” The June, 2001 Charleston, West Virginia Polk city directory listed her address as both “917 Echo Road,” and “215 Woodbridge Drive.” Despite the fact that these listings gave outdated addresses, Ms. Plemons asserts that t , 866-67 (1996) (concluding that upon return of the notice, appellee was on notice that appellants might not live at the address in question and holding that appellee should have made contact with the mortgagees identified in the mortgage contained in the chain of title); Kester v. Ives, 960 P.2d 865 (Okla.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>); L. Brayton Foundry Bldg., Inc. v. Santilli,
holding that where no attempts were made to contact the tenants of the subject property the attempt to give notice to kester was not reasonably calculated to apprise him of the action to be taken against his property holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property holding that when a husband first acquired property and then conveyed it to his wife they could not hold the property as tenants by the entirety or joint tenants because the four unities did not coincide so the deed created a tenancy in common with a right of survivorship holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead holding that where property subject to the irss timely filed lien is sold during a nonjudicial sale and the irs is not given notice of the sale the sale of the property is made subject to and without disturbing the lien