Huntington Bank, L.L.C. v. Prospect Park, L.L.C.
2012 Ohio 3261
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Prospect Park, the debtor, was under receivership in a matter enforcing a cognovit promissory note and mortgage on 4614 Prospect Avenue, Cleveland.
- The receiver sought to complete a private sale for $1,050,000, with no competing offers.
- Prospect Park did not file objections to the receiver’s Request for Instructions or to the proposed sale.
- The trial court approved the sale on November 17, 2011 without a hearing or appraisal specifically for the sale.
- This is the appellate review of the trial court’s sale approval following a prior appellate decision (Huntington I) upholding the receiver appointment.
- The court held that Chapter 2329 (writs of execution) does not govern receiverships; notice and procedures are governed by RC Chapter 2735.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sale required appraisal or valuation and an evidentiary hearing. | Prospect Park argues a formal appraisal/valuation and hearing were required under 2329. | Prospect Park contends procedures under 2329 apply to receiverships, necessitating appraisal/hearing. | Waived; even if asserted, no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the receiver’s sale violated due process or notice requirements under RC 2329 for receiverships. | Prospect Park asserts due process and notice requirements of 2329 apply to receiverships. | Receiver argues 2329 does not apply to receiverships; due process satisfied by actual notice. | RC 2329 does not apply to receiverships; no due-process violation found. |
| Whether failure to object at the trial court level barred appellate review of the sale. | Prospect Park contends objections were timely and should be reviewed. | Appellees argue waiver due to lack of timely objection at the trial court level. | Waived; failure to object bars appellate review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motel 4 BAPS, Inc. v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 191 Ohio App.3d 90 (8th Dist. 2010) (R.C. 2329.26 applies to writs of execution, not receiverships)
- Eastlake Land Dev. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2008-Ohio-3013 (8th Dist. 2008) (due process concerns; not controlling for receivership sales where debtor has notice)
- Park Natl. Bank v. Cattani, 187 Ohio App.3d 186 (2010-Ohio-1291) (receiver sales are governed by RC 2735; broad equitable power)
- Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69 (1991) (equitable authority to appoint and manage receiverships)