Third Fed. S.& L. Assn. of Cleveland v. Rains, 2012 Ohio 5708

Third Federal filed a December 2010 foreclosure action and moved for summary judgment; magistrate granted summary judgment in August 2011 with no objections filed.
The trial court in September 2011 entered a foreclosure order adopting the magistrate’s decision and awarded Third Federal $209,748.34.
Rains appealed the September 2011 foreclosure order in October 2011; the court stayed the sheriff’s sale pending appeal.
Rains voluntarily dismissed the appeal in February 2012, and the sale proceeded in June 2012 under the September 2011 foreclosure order.
The trial court issued a confirmation of sale in June 2012, which Rains now challenges on appeal.
Rains argues the foreclosure order was not final and appealable, which would affect the validity of the sale and its confirmation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the confirmation of sale was proper.	Rains argues the earlier foreclosure order was not final or appealable.	Rains contends lack of finality undermines sale confirmation.	No abuse of discretion; foreclosure order stood as valid and sale properly confirmed.

Ohio Sav. Bank v. Ambrose, 56 Ohio St.3d 53 (1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for confirming sale; finality not a nullity)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Haverkamp, 2011-Ohio-2099 (2011) (finality of a confirmation order cures irregularities in sale)
Peoples Liberty Bank & Trust Co. v. Cornett, 86 Ohio App.2d 222 (1949) (final confirmation eliminates prior defects in sale process)
Sky Bank v. Mamone, 182 Ohio App.3d 323 (2009) (review of confirmation order; adherence to R.C. 2329.01–2329.61)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard requires more than error)