In State v. Durbin (1991), 83 Ohio App.3d 156, 614 N.E.2d 799, the Court held that the state could not prove that the defendant had the purpose to defraud using the evidentiary route of R.C. 2913.11(C). The defendant, Durbin, wrote two checks to his ex-wife in an attempt to satisfy a divorce judgment. When the checks were dishonored, his ex-wife mailed him a ten-day notice by certified mail. The return receipt indicated that someone else signed the receipt as Durbin's agent. The Court held that receipt of the certified mail by the defendant's agent did not constitute the actual knowledge required by the evidentiary route of R.C. 2913.11(C).