Huntington Natl. Bank v. PRS Invests., L.L.C.Huntington Natl. Bank v. PRS Invests., L.L.C.
George R. Royer, for appellant.
* * * * *
YARBROUGH, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Paul Syroka, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which appointed a receiver over the property of PRS Investments, LLC. We affirm.
{¶ 2} On February 13, 2012, a cognovit judgment was entered in favor of appellee, Huntington National Bank, against PRS Investments and Paul Syroka for their default on two notes totaling approximately $1.8 million. The notes were secured by mortgages on certain real property owned by PRS Investments. Shortly after entry of the cognovit judgments, Huntington moved for the appointment of a receiver over the property. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on February 17, 2012, and on February 24, 2012, entered its order appointing Dennis Noneman as receiver.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 3} On March 26, 2012, appellant appealed from the order appointing the receiver, initially raising two assignments of error. The first assignment of error, pertaining to the validity of the underlying cognovit judgment, was stricken from appellant‘s brief, and that part of the appeal dismissed, by this court on October 12, 2012. Appellant asserts as his remaining assignment of error:
THE COURT ERRED IN APPOINTING MR. NOONEMAN (sic) AS RECEIVER IN THIS CASE.
II. Analysis
{¶ 4} “The question of whether or not a receiver will be appointed in a given case is addressed to the sound discretion of the court under all the circumstances.” State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 73, 573 N.E.2d 62 (1991).
{¶ 5}
A receiver may be appointed by * * * the court of common pleas or a judge thereof in his county * * * in the following cases:
* * *
(B) In an action by a mortgagee, for the foreclosure of his mortgage and sale of the mortgaged property, when it appears that the mortgaged property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, or that the condition of the mortgage has not been performed, and the property is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt.
{¶ 6} Citing
{¶ 7} Here, it is undisputed that a condition of the mortgage was not performed when PRS Investments defaulted on the note. As to the value of the property being insufficient to discharge the debt, PRS Investments waived that requirement when it signed the mortgage, which provides “Lender‘s right to the appointment of a receiver shall exist whether or not the apparent value of the Property exceeds the Indebtedness by a substantial amount.” See Harajli Mgt. & Invest., Inc. v. A&M Invest. Strategies, Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 546, 2006-Ohio-3052, 855 N.E.2d 1262, ¶ 57-58 (6th Dist.) (applying the rule that “[t]he specific requirements set forth in
{¶ 8} Appellant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it appointed Dennis Noneman to be the receiver because he has an interest in the property.
{¶ 9} Accordingly, appellant‘s assignment of error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
_______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J.
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.