BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. RANDY L. ADAMS, ET AL.
No. 99399
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
December 19, 2013
2013-Ohio-5572
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-789226
BEFORE: Stewart, A.J., Keough, J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 19, 2013
James R. Douglass
James R. Douglass Co., L.P.A.
4600 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44103
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Maria Divita
Carson A. Rothfuss
Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss
120 E. Fourth Street, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 5480
Cincinnati, OH 45201
Michael B. Hurley
John R. Wirthlin
Blank Rome, L.L.P.
1700 PNC Center
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
{¶1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to
{¶2} In this appeal, Adams argues that (1) the bank failed to demonstrate that it had standing to bring this action; (2) that the court‘s order of sale was not final because it did not ascertain the amount of property protection expenses; and (3) that the court adopted a magistrate‘s decision without first reviewing it. We find no merit to these arguments and affirm the decision of the trial court. Having requested that this appeal be placed on the accelerated calendar, Adams has acquiesced to our stating the reasons for this decision in “brief and conclusory form.” See
{¶3} The bank had standing to bring this litigation and did not need to allege or otherwise prove its status as trustee for the Certificateholders of CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-23 before receiving judgment by default. It alleged in the complaint that it was in possession of the promissory note, endorsed in blank. That made the bank a holder of the note when it commenced the action, giving it
{¶4} We also reject Adams’ argument that the court‘s default judgment is not final because it allowed for the collection of expenses for “property protection” that were not readily ascertainable. The question of “[w]hether a judgment decree in foreclosure is a final appealable order if it includes as part of the recoverable damages amounts advanced by the mortgagee for inspections, appraisals, property protection and maintenance, but does not include specific itemization of those amounts in the judgment” is currently under consideration by the Ohio Supreme Court. See CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 134 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2013-Ohio-347, 982 N.E.2d 726. Nevertheless, we take the view offered by the conflict case in Roznowski that unascertainable expenses like property protection do not bar a final judgment because they can be determined at the time of the sheriff‘s sale, from which the homeowner can file a new appeal. See LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Smith, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 CA 85, 2012-Ohio-4040, ¶ 21. See also Third Fed. S. & L. Assn. of Cleveland v. Farno, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-04-028, 2012-Ohio-5245, ¶ 14; Bank of New York Mellon v. Rankin, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-808, 2013-Ohio-2774, ¶ 41.
{¶6} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
