2018 Ohio 573
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Kenneth S. Taylor and his wife defaulted on a promissory note secured by a mortgage on Twinsburg property; Deutsche Bank was assigned the note and mortgage and filed foreclosure in 2007.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Deutsche Bank on its foreclosure claim; Taylor appealed multiple times and most of his counterclaims were later dismissed. (Taylor I, Taylor II, Taylor III proceedings summarized in opinion.)
- Deutsche Bank purchased the property at a sheriff's sale on August 21, 2015; the trial court confirmed the sale on December 10, 2015 and this Court affirmed the confirmation on prior appeal.
- On January 18, 2017 the trial court entered an amended confirmation entry nunc pro tunc to correct the conveyance fee. Taylor filed four post-judgment motions challenging the amended confirmation, seeking relief under Civ.R. 60(B), requesting a hearing, contesting title, and moving to strike opposing counsel's appearance.
- The trial court denied all four motions on March 2, 2017, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider previously rejected claims and that Taylor failed to plead grounds for Civ.R. 60(B) relief.
- Taylor appealed, raising three assignments of error challenging the amended confirmation, the lack of a hearing, and approval of the sale despite his objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deutsche Bank) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by issuing an amended confirmation entry nunc pro tunc | Amended entry merely corrected a clerical conveyance fee; confirmation was proper | Amended entry concealed a $57,000 unpaid purchase price and improperly altered sale proceeds | Court: No error; issues Taylor raises were or could have been litigated earlier and are barred by res judicata |
| Whether Taylor was denied a hearing before confirmation and after the amended entry | Confirmation is an ancillary proceeding with limited scope; court followed proper process | Taylor says he requested and was denied a hearing over ~10 years of litigation | Court: No reversible error; motions raised previously decided issues and court lacked jurisdiction to relitigate them |
| Whether the trial court erred in confirming the sale and approving transfer of title over Taylor's objections | Confirmation focuses on whether sale conformed to law; prior appeals resolved foreclosure rights | Taylor contends sale was improper and loan rescinded, raising substantive foreclosure issues | Court: Confirmation and amended confirmation stand; res judicata and prior appeals preclude relitigation; Civ.R. 60(B) not properly pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Coles v. Granville, 116 Ohio St.3d 231 (2007) (res judicata bars claims arising from the same transaction after final judgment)
- Denton v. Bedinghaus, 98 Ohio St.3d 298 (2003) (definition of res judicata principles)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata doctrine in Ohio)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 139 Ohio St.3d 299 (2014) (distinguishes appealable orders in foreclosure: decree of foreclosure and confirmation of sale; explains limited scope of confirmation proceedings)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (2014) (Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used as substitute for an appeal; res judicata applies to 60(B) motions)