History
  • No items yet
midpage
2014 Ohio 881
Ohio Ct. App.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Freedom Mortgage filed for foreclosure against Howard and Bonnie Milhoan; all defendants were defaulted and the court granted default judgment.
  • Sheriff’s sale occurred on November 13, 2012; appellants Richard and Hilda Boston were high bidders and paid the deposit; sheriff returned the sale on November 15.
  • Nearly seven weeks later, on December 31, Freedom moved to vacate the sale under R.C. 2329.27(B)(1), arguing it failed to serve and file statutorily required written notice of the sale.
  • Trial court granted the bank’s proposed entry on January 4, 2013, vacating the sale and ordering return of the Bostons’ deposit; the bank later scheduled a new sale.
  • The Bostons moved to intervene (timely) arguing the bank misapplied R.C. 2329.26(A) because service and filing of written notice are excused where parties are in default; the trial court denied intervention and the Bostons appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Freedom) Defendant's Argument (Bostons) Held
Whether failure to serve and file written notice under R.C. 2329.26(A)(1)(a) voids the sheriff’s sale Sale was defective and void because plaintiff did not serve written notice on parties nor file a copy with the clerk Service on defaulted parties is excused by R.C. 2329.26(A)(1)(b); if no written notice was required, nothing was required to be filed Court: Bank misapplied statute; (A)(1)(b) excuses both service and filing when parties are in default, so sale was not void on that basis
Whether strict compliance with the filing requirement in R.C. 2329.26(A)(1)(a)(ii) is mandatory and renders a sale void post-sale Strict compliance is required; failure to file a copy of the notice with proof of service invalidates sale Strict compliance not mandated; confirmation statute contemplates cure or judicial finding of no prejudice Court: Strict compliance is not required; statutory text and precedent show sale is not necessarily void for filing failures and (A)(1)(b) applies
Whether purchasers at an unconfirmed sheriff’s sale may intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A)(2) Purchaser has no vested interest until confirmation and thus cannot claim the required interest to intervene Purchasers have a legally protectable interest in the proceedings and may be impaired if sale is vacated; intervention is timely and necessary to protect that interest Court: Bostons have a legally protectable interest for Civ.R. 24(A)(2); denial of intervention was an abuse of discretion
Alternatively, whether permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) should have been allowed Intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the bank; purchasers have no common question of law/fact Intervention would not unduly delay/prejudice; Bostons’ claims raise common questions (statutory compliance) and would not unduly delay resolution Court: Permissive intervention also should have been granted; denial was an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

  • Ohio Savings Bank v. Ambrose, 56 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1990) (purchaser has no vested property right prior to confirmation but has some procedural interest in proceedings)
  • State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (Ohio 1996) (purchaser’s ability to participate depends on intervention; no automatic right to a hearing absent intervention)
  • Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio 2007) (limits on immediate appealability of certain intervention denials; discussed distinction for special proceedings)
  • Hall v. Trapper John’s Canoe Livery, Inc., 115 Ohio App.3d 162 (Ohio Ct. App.) (parties in default are not entitled to post-sale notice and court erred granting relief where notice to defaulted parties was not required)
  • Reed v. Radigan, 42 Ohio St. 292 (Ohio 1884) (historical discussion that purchasers in jurisdictions requiring confirmation obtain no vested rights until confirmation)
  • Allen’s Lessee v. Parish, 3 Ohio 187 (Ohio 1827) (statutory prerequisites to sale do not necessarily render a confirmed sale void)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Milhoan
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Mar 6, 2014
Citations: 2014 Ohio 881; 13 CO 15
Docket Number: 13 CO 15
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In