LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v. Smith
2012 Ohio 4040
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- LaSalle Bank filed foreclosure against Ronald and Nancy Smith for the mortgage on 1625 Gully Top Lane, Canfield, Ohio, asserting a first lien and due amount of $525,023.67 plus interest.
- January 12, 2007, the trial court granted summary judgment for LaSalle ordering foreclosure and sale; no appeal was taken from that order.
- Foreclosure sale proceedings were stayed several times due to bankruptcy and federal litigation; the sale was withdrawn and later rescheduled, stayed, and then re-lifted as stays were resolved.
- In March 2011, approximately 51 months after the initial order, the Smiths moved for reconsideration and filed Civ.R. 60(B) relief, alleging LaSalle lacked real-party-in-interest status and engaged in fraud on the court.
- The trial court denied both motions; on appeal, the Seventh District held the January 12, 2007 order was final and that Civ.R. 60(B) relief was untimely.
- Two distinct judgments exist in foreclosure practice: the order of foreclosure and a later confirmation of sale; the court found the January 12, 2007 order to be final and appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the January 12, 2007 foreclosure order final and appealable? | LaSalle | Smith | Yes; the order is final and appealable. |
| Did the Civ.R. 60(B) motion operate as a valid relief-from-judgment request given finality of the order? | LaSalle | Smith | No; Civ.R. 60(B) cannot reverse a non-final order and does not apply to this final judgment. |
| Was the Civ.R. 60(B) motion timely under the grounds claimed (fraud on the court)? | LaSalle | Smith | No; four-year delay under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) was not reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Albus, 2011-Ohio-3370 (Ohio 2011) (foreclosure judgment not final when certain lien details remain to be marshaled)
- Second Nat. Bank of Warren v. Walling, 2002-Ohio-3852 (Ohio Supreme Court 2002) (foreclosure finality requires resolution of liens, priorities, and distribution)
- Emerson Tool, L.L.C. v. Emerson Family Ltd. P'ship, 2009-Ohio-6617 (Ohio 9th Dist. 2009) (recognizes two distinct judgments in foreclosure actions)
- Citifinancial, Inc. v. Haller-Lynch, 2006-Ohio-6908 (Ohio 9th Dist. 2006) (foreclosure judgments and timing aspects in finality analysis)
- Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (Ohio 1981) (motions for reconsideration of final judgments; nullity principle)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. Arc Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-prong test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief; timeliness required)
- Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 1986 (Ohio Supreme Court 1986) (reiterates that Civ.R. 60(B) cannot substitute for appeal)