Summary
The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals held that an order confirming a foreclosure sale was a final order. Because the bank did not appeal the confirmation order or properly seek relief under Civil Rule 60(B), the trial court erred by vacating the confirmation and the sale. The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Holdings
- A third-party purchaser has standing to appeal an adverse order vacating a confirmed foreclosure sale because title passes to the purchaser upon confirmation.
- Except in limited circumstances, a trial court may not sua sponte vacate its own final judgment or final order; after confirmation, the proper remedies were an appeal or a motion under Civil Rule 60(B).
Questions Presented
- Whether a third-party purchaser at a confirmed foreclosure sale has standing to appeal an order vacating the confirmation of the sale.
- Whether a trial court may sua sponte vacate its final order confirming a foreclosure sale.
- Whether the trial court's March 6, 2012 order vacating the confirmation order and sheriff's sale was proper.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (6)
- Ohio Sav. Bank v. Ambrose, 56 Ohio St. 3d 53, 55 (1990)(followed)
- Women's Fed. Sav. Bank v. Pappadakes, 38 Ohio St. 3d 143, 145 (1988)(followed)
- Emerson Tool L.L.C. v. Emerson Family Ltd. P'ship, 9th Dist. No. 24673, 2009-Ohio-6617, ¶ 13(followed)
- Cuyahoga Sav. Ass'n v. Kellar, 9th Dist. Nos. 3088-M, 3108-M, 2001 WL 358394, *2 (Apr. 11, 2001)(followed)
- Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Pearlman, 162 Ohio App. 3d 164, 2005-Ohio-3545, ¶¶ 13-15 (9th Dist.)(followed)
- Hudgins v. Mitchell, 128 Ohio App. 3d 403, 407 (9th Dist. 1998)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…