Trumbull Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Rickard
2019 Ohio 2502
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Geauga Savings Bank sued Lawrence Rickard (2011) on a mortgage Rickard had assumed; Bank later assigned its rights to Trumbull Township Board of Trustees (Township), which substituted in as plaintiff (Jan. 2016).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Township (July 29, 2016) and later entered a foreclosure decree (Sept. 9, 2016); the summary judgment denied attorney fees without a hearing.
- On appeal (Appeal II) this court held the Township, as assignee, stood in Bank’s shoes and was entitled to a hearing on attorney fees; remand was ordered for that issue.
- While Appeal II was pending, Rickard moved in the trial court to vacate the foreclosure decree and to redeem the property, depositing funds with the clerk; the magistrate and then the trial court approved redemption, vacated the foreclosure decree, ordered disbursement, and dismissed the case (July 21, 2017).
- The Township appealed the redemption order (this appeal, Appeal III) arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction while Appeal II was pending, R.C. 2329.33 did not apply (no order/sale), and funds deposited did not satisfy the judgment because attorney fees remained unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Township's Argument | Rickard's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to approve redemption/dismiss while an appeal was pending | Trial court lost jurisdiction over decree on appeal; vacating/deeming satisfied a judgment under review is void | Filing an appeal without a stay does not divest trial court of power to enforce judgment; nonappealing party may satisfy judgment | Trial court retained authority; absence of a stay allowed redemption and satisfaction, rendering the appeal moot as to the foreclosure decree |
| Whether R.C. 2329.33 (statutory redemption) applied where no order of sale occurred | Statute inapplicable because no order/sheriff's sale had been issued | Even if R.C. 2329.33 is tied to sale process, equitable right to redeem continued and trial court could act under equity to accept payment and vacate decree | Court held statutory redemption did not yet apply but equitable redemption was available; trial court acted properly under equitable authority |
| Whether Rickard’s deposit satisfied the judgment given pending attorney-fee issue | Deposit did not fully satisfy judgment because attorney fees (on remand) might be owed; funds on deposit contested | Township failed to obtain a stay; except for attorney-fee issue Township did not contest amounts; voluntary satisfaction doctrine applies if judgment is paid | Because Township did not secure a stay and did not accept payment, trial court permissibly treated the deposit as satisfying the foreclosure decree; remaining attorney-fee issue on appeal became moot as to foreclosure |
| Whether the unresolved attorney-fee claim survived redemption and dismissal | Township: fee issue survives; remand directive should not be mooted by redemption | Rickard: redemption/satisfaction moots foreclosure appeal; without a stay, appellant’s remedy is lost | Majority: fee issue rendered moot as to foreclosure decree because judgment was satisfied without a stay; dissent disagreed and would have preserved fee hearing on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. White, 50 Ohio App.2d 263 (8th Dist. 1977) (filing an appeal without a stay does not deprive trial court of authority to enforce its judgment)
- Yee v. Erie County Sheriff’s Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43 (1990) (trial court retains jurisdiction not inconsistent with appellate jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Klein v. Chorpening, 6 Ohio St.3d 3 (1983) (trial court may take actions that aid execution of appealed judgment)
- Northfield Park Assoc. v. Northeast Ohio Harness, 36 Ohio App.3d 14 (1987) (trial court powers to aid execution of judgments while appeal pending)
- Hagood v. Gail, 105 Ohio App.3d 780 (11th Dist. 1995) (nonappealing party may seek satisfaction of judgment if appellant fails to obtain a stay)
- Lynch v. Lakewood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 116 Ohio St. 361 (1927) (voluntary payment/satisfaction of a judgment can end controversy and render appeal moot)
- Hausman v. Dayton, 73 Ohio St.3d 671 (1995) (equitable and statutory right of redemption principles)
- Citizens Loan & Sav. Co. v. Stone, 1 Ohio App.2d 551 (2d Dist. 1965) (foreclosure decree determines amount due and provides basis for redemption or sale proceeds distribution)
- Women’s Fed. Sav. Bank v. Pappadakes, 38 Ohio St.3d 143 (1988) (R.C. 2329.33 applies post-sheriff’s sale but pre-confirmation; final opportunity to redeem)
- Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (1990) (acceptance of payment can moot an appeal)