PNMAC Mtge. Co., L.L.C. v. Sivula
2012 Ohio 4939
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- PNMAC appealed a trial court ruling denying its motion to amend the sheriff’s sale bidder after sale; the sale had already been confirmed in PennyMac’s name.
- Foreclosure against Sivula resulted in a default judgment and a sheriff’s sale scheduled for January 9, 2012.
- PNMAC assigned its bid to PennyMac Loan; the January 19, 2012 decree of confirmation ordered the deed to PennyMac.
- Four days after confirmation, PNMAC moved to stay and amend the purchaser to PNMAC, arguing PennyMac could not take title.
- The trial court stayed the confirmation, denied the amendment, and held the proper remedy was to vacate the sale; the court affirmed on appeal, concluding no error in denying the amendment and confirming the sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying the bid-amendment | PNMAC contends PennyMac cannot hold title; amendment required | Sivula contends post-confirmation amendments are improper | No abuse; sale confirmation stands; remedy is to vacate the sale |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Sav. Bank v. Ambrose, 56 Ohio St.3d 53 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard; finality of confirmation)
- Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Rankin, 2012-Ohio-2804 (2012) (sale confirmation and assignment considerations)
- Advance Mtge. Corp. v. Johnson, 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 10919 (1979) (early authorities on sheriff’s sale procedures)
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. Shanker, 8th Dist. No. 78127, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2191 (2001) (assignment of bid prior to confirmation permissible in discretion)
- Sky Bank v. Mamone, 182 Ohio App.3d 323 (2009) (Civ.R. 60(B) relief to vacate confirmation)