Mun. Tax Invest., L.L.C. v. Northup Reinhardt Corp.
2019 Ohio 4867
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Municipal Tax Investment LLC bought tax certificates on a Grove City (Borror Road) parcel and filed a tax-lien foreclosure in Franklin County (filed Dec. 3, 2014; decree of foreclosure entered Mar. 20, 2015).
- An initial order of sale in Jan. 2017 was withdrawn due to a legal-description issue (parcel spans counties); the Franklin County Engineer later stamped an approved description (June 20, 2017) and a renewed order issued Oct. 20, 2017.
- Sheriff sold the property to third-party purchaser Jon O. Knitter for $125,000 (sheriff's return filed Dec. 8, 2017); the trial court approved a confirmation of sale on Dec. 28, 2017.
- The confirmation cleared most liens and directed distribution of proceeds; by agreed order (Feb. 12, 2018) roughly $95,000 of sale proceeds were disbursed to defendant Northup Reinhardt Corp.
- Appellant moved (Aug. 15, 2018) under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate the confirmation and sheriff's sale, arguing the county engineer later required a new survey and thus the sale did not cover costs; trial court denied the motion and ordered appellant to pay for the survey (Oct. 3, 2018).
- Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Civ.R. 60(B) motion; the Tenth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meritorious defense (GTE prong 1) | Engineer changed position post-sale requiring a new survey and costs appellant cannot recoup, so operative facts support relief | Sale was confirmed; R.C. 5721.39 makes title incontestable and the survey dispute does not affect statutory notice or the validity of the sale | No — appellant failed to allege operative facts showing a meritorious defense to the confirmation; |
| statutory finality supports keeping the sale intact | |||
| Entitlement under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) ("no longer equitable") | Judgment now compels appellant to pay unforeseeable survey costs; equity warrants vacatur | Civ.R. 60(B)(4) requires events after judgment that were unforeseeable and beyond movant's control; appellant did not demonstrate such facts | No — appellant did not show the confirmation was "no longer equitable" under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) |
| Timeliness (Civ.R. 60(B) third GTE prong) | Motion filed ~8 months after confirmation; appellant says it tried to resolve the survey issue without court involvement | Appellant gave no explanation in the trial court for the delay and did not allege when it learned of the engineer's refusal | No — appellant failed to show the motion was filed within a reasonable time; the trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Request for hearing (raised on appeal/oral arg.) | Appellant suggested a hearing was required | Appellant never requested a hearing below and raised the issue for the first time on appeal | Not considered — appellate court declined to consider an argument raised first at oral argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (motion for relief under Civ.R. 60(B) is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three-prong test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (quoted for abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Knapp v. Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 (1986) (Civ.R. 60(B)(4) relief is for unforeseeable, prospective circumstances)
- Rose Chevrolet v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (movant must set forth operative facts to support Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency v. Guthrie, 84 Ohio St.3d 437 (1999) (Civ.R. 60(B)(4) not designed to relieve parties from circumstances they could have reasonably prevented)