ROBERT GRIMM v. BRIAN LYNCH, ET AL.
No. 96712
Cоurt of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
October 6, 2011
[Cite as Grimm v. Lynch, 2011-Ohio-5189.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nо. CV-744331
BEFORE: Keough, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Rocco, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 6, 2011
Robert L. Grimm, pro se
510 Locklie Drive
Highland Heights, OH 44143
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES BRIAN LYNCH AND JOHN RUSNOV
Frank J. Groh-Wargo
Frank J. Groh-Wargo Co., LPA
2 Berea Commons, Suite 215
Berea, OH 44017
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶ 1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuаnt to
{¶ 2} Plaintiff-appellant, Robert Grimm (“Grimm“), appeals the trial court‘s decision granting the motion to dismiss his complaint filed by defendants-appellees, Brian
{¶ 3} The facts of this case arise from an appraisal conducted by defendants for the purpose of a sheriff‘s sale of Grimm‘s property in connection with a foreclosure action pending in Cuyahoga County Court of Commons Pleas case number CV-609684 (“foreclosure case“).
{¶ 4} In February 2010, the plaintiff in the foreclosure case, Parkview Federal Savings, ordered the Clerk of Courts to refer Grimm‘s property to sheriff‘s sale, and the Clerk issued an order of salе in March 2010. In April, three appraisers (not defendants) assessed the value of Grimm‘s property at $300,000. Grimm moved to reject the land appraisal. That appraisal was subsequently rendered moot when Grimm filed for bankruptcy. After the bankruptcy stay, Parkview again directed Grimm‘s property to sheriff‘s sale. The Clerk issued an order of sale with reappraisal in October 2010. The county apрointed three different real estate appraisers — appellees and Mull — to assеss the value of Grimm‘s property. They also appraised the property at $300,000. Grimm moved to rеject this appraisal in November.
{¶ 5} Prior to the hearing on his motion, the sheriff sold the property for the minimum bid of $200,000. On December 27, 2010, Grimm then filed his complaint in
{¶ 6} In the foreclosure case, the court granted Grimm‘s motion to stay confirmation of sheriff‘s sаle pending a ruling on his motion to reject the appraisal. A hearing on the motion was held on March 22, 2011. However, on March 25, 2011, the trial court in this case granted appellees’ motion tо dismiss.
{¶ 7} Grimm now appeals, raising two assignments of error.
{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, Grimm contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the case. Appellees movеd to dismiss Grimm‘s complaint pursuant to
{¶ 9} Under our de novo standard of review, we find that dismissal was propеr under
{¶ 10} The standard for the trial court to apply to a dismissal motion made pursuant to
{¶ 11} In this case, the subject of Grimm‘s complaint was already in dispute in the foreclosure case, thus invoking the jurisdictional-priority rule. This “rule applies even when the causes of action are nоt the same if the suits present part of the same ‘whole
{¶ 12} Finally, although only Lynch and Rusnov moved for dismissal, we find that lack of subject matter jurisdiction applies equally to Mull because all three defendants appraised Grimm‘s property.
{¶ 13} Having concluded dismissal was proper for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we need not аddress the other grounds for dismissal raised in the trial court. Accordingly, Grimm‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 14} In Grimm‘s seсond assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred in not setting forth any facts or cоnclusions to afford meaningful appellate review when it granted appellees’ motion to dismiss. It is well settled that the trial court has no obligation to issue a written opinion when granting a
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant tо Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR