BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Henderson , 2013 Ohio 275 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Henderson, 
    2013-Ohio-275
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 98745
    BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
    vs.
    DWAYNE R. HENDERSON, ET AL.
    DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
    JUDGMENT:
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    Civil Appeal from the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CV-703485
    BEFORE:          Keough, J., Jones, P.J., and Blackmon, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED:                        January 31, 2013
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
    Matthew T. Anderson
    Timothy M. Clayton, Jr.
    Brett M. Renzenbrink
    Luper Neidenthal & Logan
    50 West Broad Street
    Suite 1200
    Columbus, Ohio 43215
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
    For Dwayne R. Henderson
    John Sherrod
    Laura Mills
    Paul Vincent
    Mills, Mills, Fiely & Lucas
    503 South Front Street
    Suite 240
    Columbus, Ohio 43215
    For Centurion Capital Corp.
    Centurion Capital Corp.
    700 King Farm Blvd.
    Rockville, Maryland 20850
    For Alishea T. Henderson
    Alishea T. Henderson
    5188 Spencer Road
    Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124
    For St. Colman & Affiliates F.C.U.
    St. Colman & Affiliates F.C.U.
    6637 Lorain Avenue
    Cleveland, Ohio 44102
    For State of Ohio Department of Taxation
    Joseph T. Chapman
    Collections Enforcement
    150 E. Gay Street, 21st Floor
    Columbus, Ohio 43215
    For Unknown Tenant
    Unknown Tenant
    5188 Spencer Road
    Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124
    KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
    {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, BAC Home Loans Servicing (“BAC”) appeals from the
    trial court’s judgment that vacated a prior foreclosure decree against defendant-appellee,
    Dwayne R. Henderson (“Henderson”), and dismissed BAC’s complaint without
    prejudice.   For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
    I. Background
    {¶2} In September 2009, BAC filed its complaint in foreclosure alleging that it
    was the owner of a note secured by a mortgage on property located at 5188 Spencer Road,
    Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124, Henderson had defaulted on the note, and BAC was entitled to
    foreclose on the mortgage.       Henderson did not answer the complaint 1 and BAC
    subsequently filed a motion for default judgment.          The matter was referred to a
    magistrate, who issued a decision entering judgment for BAC on its motion. On April
    15, 2010, the trial court issued a journal entry adopting the magistrate’s decision. The
    court ordered judgment for BAC against Henderson, entered a decree of foreclosure, and
    ordered that BAC could proceed to sheriff’s sale of the property.
    {¶3} A sale date was set for June 21, 2010, but two days prior to the sale,
    Henderson filed a Chapter 13 petition for bankruptcy.          Accordingly, the sale was
    withdrawn and the proceedings were stayed.       After Henderson’s bankruptcy case was
    dismissed, the property was again set for sheriff’s sale on June 11, 2012.
    Defendant State of Ohio, Department of Taxation, was the only defendant
    1
    that answered the complaint; the department disclaimed any interest in the
    property                  and                  was                   dismissed.
    {¶4} Henderson then filed a request for mediation.       On May 30, 2012, the trial
    court denied Henderson’s request and ordered that BAC could proceed to execute on its
    judgment.
    {¶5} Henderson then filed another request for mediation. On June 7, 2012, the
    trial court entered an order finding that the case might be suitable for mediation and
    staying all discovery and motion practice pending the mediator’s final determination
    regarding suitability for mediation.   The trial court ordered that the case would be set for
    a pre-mediation conference by separate order, and further ordered that “failure of
    plaintiff’s counsel to appear will result in the 04/15/10 judgment being vacated, and
    dismissal of all claims without prejudice.”       The court ordered the property sale to
    proceed but stayed confirmation of the sale pending the results of mediation.
    {¶6} On June 12, 2012, the trial court issued a journal entry setting the
    pre-mediation conference for July 2, 2012 and again ordering that “failure of the
    plaintiff’s counsel to appear in person at the pre-mediation conference will result in
    dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.”
    {¶7} BAC’s counsel did not appear at the pre-mediation conference. On July 3,
    2012, the trial court issued a journal entry ordering that “pursuant to this court’s order
    dated June 7, 2012, the judgment and decree of foreclosure dated 4-15-10 and the
    sheriff’s sale of 6-11-12 are vacated.”   The court ordered the sheriff to return the order
    of sale without execution and to mark as void any deed that had been prepared as a result
    of the sale. Finally, the trial court ordered that BAC’s claims were dismissed without
    prejudice.
    II.    Analysis
    {¶8} BAC raises three assignments of error, all of which challenge the trial
    court’s July 3, 2012 journal entry. In its first assignment of error, BAC argues that the
    trial court erred in sua sponte vacating its April 15, 2010 judgment and decree of
    foreclosure; in its second assignment, BAC contends that the trial court erred in sua
    sponte vacating the sheriff’s sale; and in its third assignment, BAC contends that the trial
    court erred in sua sponte dismissing its foreclosure action. We agree with all of BAC’s
    contentions.
    {¶9} The trial court’s April 15, 2010 judgment ordering foreclosure and sale of
    the property was a final, appealable order.    Sky Bank v. Mamone, 
    182 Ohio App.3d 323
    ,
    
    2009-Ohio-2265
    , 
    912 N.E.2d 668
    , ¶ 25 (8th Dist.), citing Smith v. Najjar, 
    163 Ohio App.3d 208
    , 
    2005-Ohio-4720
    , 
    837 N.E.2d 419
    , ¶ 10 (5th Dist.) (“An order of foreclosure
    and sale is a final appealable order, * * * and the later order confirming the sale * * * is a
    second, separate, final appealable order.”); see also Mtge. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v.
    Harris-Gordon, 6th Dist. No. L-10-1176, 
    2011-Ohio-1970
    , ¶ 10 (both the order of
    foreclosure and the order confirming the sheriff’s sale are final, appealable orders).
    {¶10} A trial court has no authority to sua sponte vacate its own final orders.     In
    re R.T.A., 8th Dist. No. 98498, 
    2012-Ohio-5080
    , ¶ 5, citing Dickerson v. Cleveland
    Metro. Hous. Auth., 8th Dist. No. 96726, 
    2011-Ohio-6437
    , ¶ 7. Since the adoption of
    the Civil Rules, Civ.R. 60(B) provides the exclusive means for a trial court to vacate a
    final judgment. In re R.T.A., 
    supra,
     citing Rice v. Bethel Assoc., Inc., 
    35 Ohio App.3d 133
    , 
    520 N.E.2d 26
     (9th Dist.1987); In re D.R.M., 8th Dist. No. 98633, 
    2012-Ohio-5422
    ,
    ¶ 7.
    {¶11} Here, neither party filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment nor
    asked the court to vacate any of the provisions of the court’s April 15, 2010 judgment.
    Accordingly, the trial court erred in sua sponte vacating its judgment of foreclosure in
    favor of BAC and in sua sponte vacating the sheriff’s sale.
    {¶12} Henderson concedes that a court is without authority to sua sponte vacate its
    final judgments but argues that the trial court had authority in this case to dismiss the
    foreclosure action without prejudice because the court gave notice that the matter would
    be dismissed if the parties failed to appear at the pre-mediation conference.
    Henderson’s argument is without merit.      Because the trial court had entered a judgment
    of foreclosure for BAC and ordered the property to be sold at sheriff’s sale — a final
    judgment — the court was without authority to sua sponte vacate its judgment and
    dismiss the case.    Henderson’s remedy upon the trial court’s order of foreclosure and
    sale was to file an appeal or a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment in the trial
    court.    Because he did not file a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, the trial court was without
    authority to sua sponte vacate its final judgment of foreclosure and sale and dismiss the
    case.
    {¶13} BAC’s assignments of error are therefore sustained.        The trial court’s
    judgment entry dated July 3, 2012 is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial
    court with instructions to reinstate the April 15, 2010 judgment entry.
    {¶14} Reversed and remanded.
    It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee its costs
    herein.
    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 to Rule 27 of
    the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
    LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
    PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR