Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Partners For Payment Relief De III, LLC v. Moss

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

December 29, 2017

PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT RELIEF DE III, LLC Appellant
v.
HAZEL MOSS, et al. Appellees

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2013-12-5995

          DANIEL O. BARHAM, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          ERIC T. DEIGHTON, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          HAZEL MOSS, pro se, Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          LYNNE S. CALLAHAN, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Partners for Payment Relief DE III, LLC ("Partners") appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that denied its motion to set aside foreclosure sale or, in the alternative, confirm the sale without requiring it to pay extinguished tax certificate liens. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Partners filed a complaint for money judgment and foreclosure against Hazel Moss. It named Woods Cove III, LLC ("Woods Cove") as a defendant because Woods Cove had tax certificates against the property. After Ms. Moss and Woods Cove did not file answers, Partners moved for default judgment and/or summary judgment against them and other defendants. The trial court granted its motion and entered a decree of foreclosure. Woods Cove moved for relief from judgment, but the trial court denied its motion. Partners subsequently purchased the property at sheriffs sale.

          {¶3} Ten months after the sheriffs sale, Partners filed a "Motion of Plaintiff to Set Aside Foreclosure Sale, or in the Alternative, Confirm the Sale without Requiring Plaintiff to Pay Extinguished Tax Certificate Liens." In its motion, Partners alleged that it had been attempting to complete the steps necessary for the trial court to confirm the sheriffs sale, including paying off the taxes owed on the property. Partners alleged that it had been unable to pay the taxes, however, because the County Treasurer was requiring it to pay not only the amount owed to the county, but also the amount owed on the tax certificates held by Woods Cove, despite the default judgment entered against Woods Cove. Alleging that it would not have purchased the property at the sheriffs sale if it had known it would have to pay off Woods Cove's tax certificates, Partners requested that the court set aside the sale. In the alternative, it requested that the court issue an order that would allow confirmation of the sale without payment of the Woods Cove tax certificates. The trial court denied Partners' motion. Partners has appealed and assigned one error.

         II.

         THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT RELIEF DE III, LLC'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURE SALE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONFIRM SALE WITHOUT REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY EXTINGUISHED TAX CERTIFICATE LIENS.

         {¶4} Partners argues that the trial court incorrectly denied its motion to confirm the sheriffs sale. Specifically, it argues that it should not have to pay off the tax certificates owned by Woods Cove because the default judgment against Woods Cove precludes Woods Cove from receiving any proceeds of the sheriffs sale.

         {¶5} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that "[w]hether a judicial sale should be confirmed * * * is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Ohio Sav. Bank v. Ambrose, 56 Ohio St.3d 53, 55 (1990), quoting Michigan Mtge. Corp. v. Oakley, 68 Ohio App.2d 83 (12th Dist.1980), paragraph two of the syllabus. We review the court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Brandywine Pres. Cluster Assn. v. Carter, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27584, 2015-Ohio- 4163, ¶ 6. An abuse of discretion "implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

         {¶6} In its motion, Partners noted that R.C. 2329.31 outlines when a court should confirm a sale. See Ambrose at 55 ("Confirmation of foreclosure sales regarding real property is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.