LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v. Brown
17 N.E.3d 81
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- LaSalle foreclosed Browns’ property; consent entry foreclosed with sale; DiGiorgio purchased at sheriff’s sale and challenged the judgment by motion to vacate; the trial court denied the motion and DiGiorgio appealed; issue focused on DiGiorgio’s standing and collateral attack against the foreclosure judgment; Court held LaSalle had standing as a nonholder in possession and DiGiorgio lacked intervention rights to contest it.
- DiGiorgio argued she had standing to challenge the consent entry and that caveat emptor did not bar challenge; bank contends DiGiorgio lacked standing and failed to intervene; court concluded the foreclosure judgment was not void and DiGiorgio’s collateral attack was improper.
- Court found Schwartzwald controls the lack of standing analysis, but concluded it did not apply; LaSalle’s ownership and ratified assignments supported standing as a nonholder in possession; caveat emptor applied to defects publicly recorded; judgment not void ab initio; intervention under Civ.R. 24(C) was not properly invoked by DiGiorgio.
- The Browns’ consented foreclosure judgment remained valid; absence of timely Civ.R. 60(B) relief or intervention meant no voiding of the judgment; finality of the sale and lack of timely collateral attack foreclose DiGiorgio’s challenge; judgment affirmed.
- DiGiorgio’s attempted collateral attack is barred; even if standing issue were reconsidered, the judgment would be voidable, not void, absent Civ.R. 60(B) relief; final foreclosure decree and sale finalize the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to contest the consent entry | LaSalle: DiGiorgio lacked Civ.R. 24 intervention. | DiGiorgio: she had standing to challenge the judgment. | DiGiorgio lacked standing due to no intervention; judgment affirmed. |
| Collateral attack vs. void judgment | LaSalle: Schwartzwald does not render the judgment void. | DiGiorgio: judgment may be void ab initio due to lack of standing. | Judgment not void ab initio; collateral attack barred. |
| Caveat emptor applicability | LaSalle: defects were public record and discoverable; caveat emptor bars recovery. | DiGiorgio: title defects could be challenged despite public record. | Caveat emptor bars DiGiorgio’s challenge to title defects. |
| Schwartzwald applicability to standing | LaSalle: Schwartzwald does not apply given record. | DiGiorgio: case resembles Schwartzwald. | Schwartzwald does not dictate outcome; standing analyzed as above. |
| Effect of Civ.R. 60(B) | LaSalle: Civ.R. 60(B) relief not timely or appropriate. | DiGiorgio: Civ.R. 60(B) could vindicate voidable defects. | Civ.R. 60(B) not invoked; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (lack of standing to sue requires dismissal; standing determined at filing)
- Nichpor, 136 Ohio St.3d 55 (2013-Ohio-2083) (foreclosure final; voidable vs void; Civ.R. 60(B) paths)
- Bailey, 2014-Ohio-246 (11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2012-T-0086) (standing not equated with subject-matter jurisdiction; sale finality context)
- Busby, 2013-Ohio-1919 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25510) (standing necessary to invoke jurisdiction; documents facially valid)
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (2007-Ohio-5024) (collateral attacks disfavored; exceptions for fraud or lack of jurisdiction)