Jackson v. Moissis
2017 Ohio 1000
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2000 John C.L. Jackson (appellee) loaned money to Peter Moissis and received a recorded purchase-money mortgage on Moissis’s real property.
- Moissis married Jennifer Moissis (appellant) in 2002, after the mortgage was executed.
- Moissis later defaulted; Jackson foreclosed, bought the property at sheriff’s sale for substantially less than the mortgage balance, and recorded the sheriff’s deed.
- Jackson filed a quiet-title action to remove any cloud from Jennifer’s asserted dower interest, arguing her dower was subordinate to his prior mortgage and that no surplus from the sale existed to support a dower claim.
- Jennifer argued Jackson should have joined her in the foreclosure under R.C. 2301.041 so the court could value and prioritize her dower, and that the quiet-title action could not extinguish or value her dower rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (Moissis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate dower in a quiet-title action | Quiet-title is proper; mortgage predates marriage so dower is subordinate and, because there was no surplus, no dower attaches | Court must have followed R.C. 2301.041 in the foreclosure by joining spouse and valuing dower; quiet-title cannot extinguish dower absent that process | Court has jurisdiction; quiet-title may resolve cloud; mortgage prior in time prevails and no surplus means no dower entitlement |
| Whether R.C. 2301.041 required joinder of spouse in foreclosure to preserve dower valuation | Statute is permissive; foreclosure may include spouse for efficiency but joinder is not mandatory and complete relief can be had without naming spouse | Statute required the trial court in foreclosure to determine present value/priority of dower; failure to do so deprives trial court of authority to extinguish/valorize dower later | The statute is permissive, not mandatory; failure to join spouse in foreclosure did not bar quiet-title relief when no surplus existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stand Energy Corp. v. Epler, 163 Ohio App.3d 354 (holding dower value depends on husband’s beneficial interest)
- Culver v. Harper, 27 Ohio St. 464 (purchase-money mortgage consumes estate to mortgage debt; dower limited to surplus)
- Canan v. Heffey, 27 Ohio App. 430 (wife’s dower measured by husband’s seisin; no dower beyond amount needed to satisfy mortgage)
- Kerr v. Lydecker, 51 Ohio St. 240 (mortgagee’s rights after default limit mortgagor’s and spouse’s residual interests)
- In re Hays, 181 F. 674 (dower measured by beneficial interest of husband)