Onewest Bank v. Konnerth
2017 Ohio 2597
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- OneWest Bank filed a foreclosure action (June 2015) against owners of 1047 Quentin Road, Eastlake, Ohio; the trial court entered an in-rem foreclosure decree (Jan. 6, 2016) and issued order of sale.
- A sheriff-appointed three-member appraisal returned an estimated value of $87,000 (appraisal dated Mar. 30, 2016); notice of sale was published and sale scheduled for May 9, 2016.
- The sheriff reported the property sold to OneWest Bank for $113,000 (Sheriff’s Return filed May 17, 2016); OneWest moved to confirm the sale (June 15, 2016).
- Haskett (and unknown heirs) objected to confirmation, challenging notice, appraisal (alleging no interior view), procedural compliance with local rules, and the confirmation entry’s sufficiency.
- Trial court entered Judgment Entry Confirming Sale, Ordering Deed and Distributing Sale Proceeds (July 15, 2016); Haskett appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion and statutory/local procedures were not followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confirmation was proper where sale procedures allegedly flawed | OneWest: sale complied with statutory notice, appraisement, publication, and local rules; purchaser followed required steps | Haskett: notice/advertisement/execution defective; appraisal invalid because appraisers did not view interior; confirmation entry/form invalid | Court affirmed: procedures on record complied with statute; Haskett was in default; sale exceeded appraised value; no prejudice shown |
| Whether failure to serve written notice required service on defaulting parties | OneWest: service not required on parties in default | Haskett: claimed improper notice/service | Court: statutory exception applies; Haskett was in default so service unnecessary |
| Whether appraisers must view interior and whether failure requires set-aside | OneWest: appraisal certified as "upon actual view" and sale price exceeded appraisal | Haskett: appraisers didn’t enter interior; appraisal thus defective and prejudicial | Court: mere allegation insufficient; must show gross inaccuracy and prejudice; here sale price exceeded appraisal, so no prejudice shown |
| Whether local rule or form deficiencies void confirmation | OneWest: complied with Local Rules by filing motion and proposed entry; record shows required filings and publication | Haskett: confirmation entry was a bank-provided form and "vague/insufficient" | Court: conclusory assertions unsupported by record/case law are disregarded; no demonstrated violation of Local Rules |
Key Cases Cited
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 11 N.E.3d 1140 (Ohio 2014) (confirmation review is ancillary and limited to conformity with law)
- Ohio Sav. Bank v. Ambrose, 563 N.E.2d 1388 (Ohio 1990) (trial court has discretion to grant or deny confirmation)