2020 Ohio 6666
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Bayview Loan Servicing filed a foreclosure against Cheryl Griffen; she defaulted and the trial court entered default judgment on July 24, 2019.
- The property was advertised and sold at sheriff's sale on October 7, 2019; Gary E. Powers purchased it for $142,000.
- After the sale, Powers learned (from a third party and later GIS imagery) that a garage allegedly straddled the common line onto an adjacent parcel, and he moved to vacate the sheriff's sale and sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B).
- Bayview withdrew its opposition to Powers' motion; Cheryl moved to strike Powers' filings arguing Powers lacked standing and there was no judgment yet to attack (sale not confirmed).
- The trial court denied Cheryl's motion to strike, denied the Civ.R. 60(B) relief, but granted Powers' motion to vacate the sheriff's sale (returning his deposit) on grounds the encroachment was not reasonably discoverable by visual inspection.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District reversed the vacatur (holding caveat emptor applies to judicial sales) and affirmed the denial of Cheryl's motion to strike; the case was remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does the successful bidder have standing to appear before sale confirmation? | Powers: as the successful bidder he has standing to protect his acquired interest. | Griffen: purchaser lacked standing to participate before sale confirmation. | Court: Powers had standing to appear and participate after becoming the successful bidder. |
| 2. Should the sheriff's sale be vacated due to an alleged encroachment not apparent on visual inspection? | Powers: encroachment spanned neighbor's land and was not reasonably discoverable, so vacatur is warranted. | Griffen: caveat emptor applies to judicial sales; purchaser had duty to examine public records and bears the risk. | Court (appeal): caveat emptor bars relief; vacatur reversed because buyer failed to investigate public records. |
| 3. Did the trial court err by denying Griffen's motion to strike affidavits supporting the motion to vacate? | Griffen: affidavits should be stricken because Powers lacked standing and there was no judgment to attack. | Powers: affidavits admissible; he had standing as buyer. | Court: no abuse of discretion denying motion to strike; affidavits were permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Savings Bank v. Ambrose, 56 Ohio St.3d 53 (1990) (discusses purchaser's rights and appeals related to sale confirmation)
- Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Nichpor, 136 Ohio St.3d 55 (2013) (judicial sales carry a degree of finality)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 139 Ohio St.3d 299 (2014) (emphasizes finality of foreclosure decrees and judicial sales)
- Kain v. Weitzel, 72 Ohio App. 229 (1st Dist. 1943) (purchaser at judicial sale "buys with his eyes open" and bears risk for defects discoverable by inspection)