CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski (Slip Opinion)
139 Ohio St. 3d 299
| Ohio | 2014Background
- CitiMortgage sought foreclosure on Roznowski property and included recoverable costs for advances for inspections, appraisals, preservation, and maintenance in the complaint.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for CitiMortgage and ordered a final decree; the entry labeled it a final appealable order with no dollar amount specified.
- Roznowskis appealed, arguing the decree was not final because it did not set precise amounts owed; Fifth District dismissed for lack of finality.
- On remand, court entered a decree listing principal, interest, costs, and added future advances for title evidence, taxes, insurance, and maintenance, but did not itemize exact amounts.
- Fifth District again reversed for lack of finality, noting lack of specific amounts and the timing for challenging costs; court certified a conflict with LaSalle Bank case.
- Ohio supreme court resolved the conflict, holding that a foreclosure decree with unspecified advances is final and that mortgagors may challenge these advances during the confirmation process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a foreclosure decree final despite unspecified advances? | CitiMortgage | Roznowskis | Yes, final; damages need only ministerial calculation later |
| May mortgagors challenge advances during confirmation proceedings? | Roznowskis | CitiMortgage | Yes; challenge and appeal during confirmation allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v. Smith, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 85, 2012-Ohio-4040 (2012) (foreclosure decree may be final where lien rights are set, even if some amounts are deferred to confirmation)
- Walling, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 01-C.A.-62, 2002-Ohio-3852 (2002) (no final order where fundamental issues remain unresolved)
- PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Albus, 7th Dist. Monroe No. 09 MO 9, 2011-Ohio-3370 (2011) (decree not final when other liens/amounts unresolved)
- Day, 158 Ohio App.3d 349, 2004-Ohio-4514 (2004) (proper time to challenge lien priority is on foreclosure appeal)
- Ambrose, Ohio St.3d 56, 1990 (1990) (confirmation involves legality of sale; not a broad bar on challenges)
- Fairchild, 175 Ohio St. 311, 194 N.E.2d 580 (1963) (proper pathway to challenge is via foreclosure order, not post-sale)
- White v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 79 Ohio St.3d 543, 684 N.E.2d 72 (1997) (damages computation can be ministerial; finality when only ministerial tasks remain)