Real Time Resolutions, Inc. v. Vogelpohl
2021 Ohio 1270
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Real Time Resolutions, Inc. filed a residential foreclosure on Nov. 1, 2018, naming James and Deborah Vogelpohl and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as defendants; RTA alleged it held a modified promissory note and sought foreclosure plus a monetary judgment (~$41,873.29 with 3.95% interest).
- Appellants answered raising affirmative defenses (including laches); HSBC answered asserting a first-mortgage interest.
- Appellee moved for summary judgment on Jan. 3, 2019; after discovery the Vogelpohls opposed with personal affidavits and an affidavit from a real-estate agent asserting a laches defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellee on Mar. 10, 2020. Appellants appealed on Apr. 9, 2020.
- The trial court entered a purported final, appealable judgment on May 29, 2020, then vacated that entry on June 9, 2020 and reinstated the case; the case was stayed June 13, 2020.
- The Tenth District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the summary-judgment decision was not a final, appealable foreclosure decree (it did not resolve lien priorities, amounts due to other claimants, or whether a sale would be ordered).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's March 10, 2020 summary-judgment decision is a final, appealable order in a foreclosure action | The summary-judgment ruling disposes of the Vogelpohls' claims and is sufficiently final to permit appeal | The Vogelpohls contended summary judgment was improper on the merits (laches) and thus appealed the ruling | Court held the decision is not a final, appealable foreclosure decree because it did not resolve lien marshaling, lien priority, amounts due to other claimants (including HSBC), or order a sale; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the court should reach the merits of appellants’ laches and affidavit arguments | Real Time argued it met Civ.R. 56 burden and there was no genuine issue of material fact on laches | Vogelpohls argued their affidavits (including Russo) raised genuine issues on laches and were improperly disregarded | Court did not reach the merits: because the order was not final, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio 2007) (discusses final-judgment requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1989) (Civ.R. 54(B) and finality principles)
- Lycan v. Cleveland, 146 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 2016) (R.C. 2505.02 final-order framework)
- Farmers State Bank v. Sponaugle, 157 Ohio St.3d 151 (Ohio 2019) (foreclosure actions have two final judgments: decree of foreclosure and confirmation of sale)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 139 Ohio St.3d 299 (Ohio 2014) (foreclosure decree must determine lienholders' interests and priorities)
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 1989) (Civ.R. 54(B) cannot create finality where R.C. 2505.02 requirements are unmet)