In King v. King (1977), 55 Ohio App.2d 43, 379 N.E.2d 251, appellant husband received notice of the hearing date in his wife's divorce action from her attorney, by letter. Id. at 43-44. He failed to appear; and the trial court entered judgment. Id. at 44. Husband appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in going ahead with trial in the divorce, since it had not noticed the trial date to him in compliance with Civ. R. 75(L). The Ninth District agreed, holding as follows: "It is clear that this rule [75(L)] mandates that the court shall give the adverse party notice of the trial. Compliance with this rule is not achieved through the informal notice procedure that occurred in this case. The husband was not under any duty to appear in response to a notice from his wife's attorney. He did not lose his right to notice under Civ. R. 75(L). As a consequence, the trial court committed reversible error by entering a judgment without proper notice to the husband. "The purpose of Civ. R. 75(G) and (L) was to prevent or reduce the number of divorces which are granted without the court hearing the merits from both sides. Additionally, it tends to prevent fraud by one party upon the other. The integrity of the system requires that the court send out the notices for trial upon the merits." King at 44-45.