Fannie Mae v. Dent
2021 Ohio 3826
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Fannie Mae and Chemical Bank sued Richard Dent and Karena Lowe-Dent (the Dents) over mortgage default on a Gahanna property; intervenors Mark and Julie Vieta (the Vietas) asserted rent-to-own breach and fraudulent inducement claims.
- The Dents were served by early November 2018 but did not answer any complaints or cross-claims.
- The trial court entered default judgment for the Vietas on March 14, 2019 (including $50,000 plus fees) and for Fannie Mae, Chemical Bank, and the Vietas on October 19, 2019.
- A sheriff’s sale was scheduled; the Dents moved on Feb. 10, 2020 for relief from the Vietas’ default judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) and to stay/vacate the sheriff’s sale under Civ.R. 62(A). The trial court denied both motions on Mar. 2, 2020.
- The sheriff’s sale proceeded on Mar. 5, 2020 and the Vietas purchased the property; the Dents appealed the denial of the Civ.R. 60(B) motion and the denial of a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dents were entitled to relief from the Vietas’ default judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) (excusable neglect) | The default was valid; relief should be denied because Dents failed to respond for ~18 months | Dents claimed excusable neglect due to ongoing negotiations, financial hardship, and living in Florida preventing counsel retention | Court held Dents failed to show excusable neglect; denial of Civ.R. 60(B) was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a stay of enforcement of judgment under Civ.R. 62(A) | Stay not required where Civ.R. 60(B) relief was properly denied and court has discretion | Dents sought stay because they argued Civ.R. 60(B) relief should have been granted | Court found stay decision discretionary and not properly before it on appeal (procedurally barred/moot); no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (establishes Civ.R. 60(B) three-part test for relief)
- State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner, 76 Ohio St.3d 149 (motion under Civ.R. 60(B) is within trial court discretion; failure to meet requirements bars relief)
- Vanest v. Pillsbury Co., 124 Ohio App.3d 525 (surveyed factors for excusable neglect)
- Associated Estates Corp. v. Fellows, 11 Ohio App.3d 112 (lack of counsel after service is not necessarily excusable neglect)
- Manson v. Gurney, 62 Ohio App.3d 290 (pro se status does not excuse failure to respond)
- Katko v. Modic, 85 Ohio App.3d 834 (lack of legal understanding insufficient to justify nonparticipation)