Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Wizzard, 2014 Ohio 73

Fifth Third Mortgage Company filed foreclosure against Maureen Wizzard on the Property and obtained a Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure.
The Property was appraised by three disinterested appraisers upon actual view and valued at $240,000.
The sheriff sold the Property to a disinterested third party on January 10, 2013 for $213,500 (about 89% of the appraised value).
Wizzard appealed the judgment (CA2012-11-226) but did not post a supersedeas bond, so no stay of execution was in effect.
The trial court granted a nunc pro tunc Confirmation Entry of Sale and Distribution of Proceeds on February 25, 2013, which this court reviewed.
Wizzard argued lack of jurisdiction to confirm sale during appeal and claimed the appraisal was not 'upon actual view'; the court rejected both arguments and affirmed the sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sale confirmation during an appeal without a supersedeas bond was void	Fifth Third argued trial court had jurisdiction to confirm sale absent a stay.	Wizzard contended lack of jurisdiction due to pendency of appeal and lack of stay.	Trial court had jurisdiction; no stay obtained; not void.
Whether appraisal 'upon actual view' requirement was satisfied and prejudiced Wizzard	Fifth Third contends appraisal complied with RC 2329.17 and is not per se invalid.	Wizzard contends appraisal without interior viewing was prejudicial and should invalidate sale.	Appraisal complied; Wizzard failed to show prejudice or higher value would have changed outcome.

Strah v. Lake Cty. Humane Soc., 90 Ohio App.3d 822 (11th Dist.1993) (appeal does not stay proceeding without a stay)
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Urquhart, 2005-Ohio-4627 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2004-04-098, CA2004-10-271) (trial court retains jurisdiction absent proper stay)
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Hall, 2003-Ohio-462 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19331) (failure to enter interior does not automatically void appraisal)