U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Tye

[Cite as U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Tye, 2023-Ohio-637.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
U.S. BANK NATIONAL : APPEAL NO. C-220071
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR TRIAL NO. A-1805683
RMAC TRUST, SERIES 2016-CTT, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : O P I N I O N.
:
VS.
:
KENNETH TYE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 3, 2023
Manley Deas Kochalski LLC and Matthew J. Richardson, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
DannLaw and Marc E. Dann, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Kenneth Tye appeals from the judgment of the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of U.S.
Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) on its residential foreclosure action.
However, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order.
{¶2} In October 2018, U.S. Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure against
Tye.1 In July 2019, U.S. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 31,
2019, the magistrate recommended granting summary judgment as to the note only
because “a genuine issue of material fact remain[ed] concerning whether US Bank is
the current holder of the mortgage.” Both parties objected to the magistrate’s decision.
{¶3} Before ruling on the objections, the trial court granted U.S. Bank leave
to file an amended complaint to address the noteholder issue. U.S. Bank subsequently
filed an amended complaint that named a former noteholder—Taylor, Bean &
Whitaker Mortgage Corporation—as an additional defendant. After obtaining a default
judgment against the now-defunct Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation,
U.S. Bank filed a second motion for summary judgment on June 3, 2021.
{¶4} On October 15, 2021, the magistrate granted U.S. Bank’s motion for
summary judgment and issued the decree in foreclosure. The entry set forth the legal
description of the property, in addition to the total amount due on the note as follows:
$233,466.04 plus interest on the principal amount at the rate of 2% per
annum from January 1, 2014, adjusted as per the terms of the Note. The
Magistrate further finds that there is due on the Note all late charges
1U.S. Bank had previously filed a complaint for foreclosure against Tye in 2016 but it was dismissed
due to an assignment issue. After filing a corrective assignment, U.S. Bank filed this 2018
complaint.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
imposed under the Note, all advances made for the payment of real
estate taxes and assessments, property preservation, and insurance
premiums, and all costs and expenses incurred for the enforcement of
the Note and Mortgage, except to the extent the payment of one or more
specific such items is prohibited by Ohio law.
{¶5} Tye filed timely written objections to the magistrate’s decision. On
January 26, 2022, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision without ruling on
the objections. The court’s “Entry Adopting Magistrate’s Decision and Final Decree in
Foreclosure,” states, in its entirety:
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and the evidence. The Court finds that
the Magistrate has issued a decision granting Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and a copy of the Magistrate’s Decision has been
filed herein. For the reasons more fully set forth in the Magistrate’s
Decision, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and Decree
in Foreclosure in its entirety and enters judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff in the manner set forth in detail in the Magistrate’s Decision.
Pursuant to the Magistrate’s Decision, the equity of redemption of the
defendant title holders in the Property shall be foreclosed and the
property shall be sold free of the interests of all parties to this action.
There is no just reason for delay in entering Judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
{¶6} This appeal followed.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶7} As an appellate court, we have jurisdiction to “review and affirm,
modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court
of appeals within the district * * *.” Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2).
Without a final order, we have no jurisdiction. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 139
Ohio St.3d 299, 2014-Ohio-1984, 11 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 10; Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540, ¶ 9. An order is final “ ‘only if the
requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B), are met.’ ”
CitiMortgage at ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-
Ohio-5315, 776 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 5. “[W]e are obliged to consider our jurisdiction even if
neither party raises the issue.” Preterm-Cleveland at ¶ 9.
{¶8} R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) provides that “[a]n order is a final order * * * when
it * * * affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and
prevents a judgment.” In the foreclosure arena, “[l]iability is fully and finally
established when the court issues the foreclosure decree and all that remains is
mathematics, with the court plugging in final amounts due after the property has been
sold at a sheriff’s sale.” CitiMortgage at ¶ 25.
{¶9} Where a magistrate is involved, and when the trial court adopts,
rejects, or modifies a magistrate’s decision, it must also enter a judgment. Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(e). An entry that merely “stat[es] that it is adopting a magistrate’s decision
is not a final appealable order.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 2012-Ohio-175, 969
N.E.2d 309, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Moore, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 91145, 2008-Ohio-6163, ¶ 1. “To constitute a final appealable order, the trial
court’s journal entry must be a separate and distinct instrument from that of the
magistrate’s order and must grant relief on the issues originally submitted to the
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
court.” Flagstar Bank at ¶ 1; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Co. v. Caldwell, 196 Ohio App.3d
636, 2011-Ohio-4508, 964 N.E.2d 1093, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.) (holding a trial court’s entry
was not final where it “did not enable the parties to refer to the entry and determine
their responsibilities and obligations.”); Everhome Mtge. Co. v. Kilcoyne, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 96982, 2012-Ohio-593, ¶ 3 (“The judgment entry must contain a clear
pronouncement of the court’s judgment and a statement of relief and must be a
complete document, separate and apart from that of the magistrate’s order.”).
{¶10} A trial court also has a mandatory duty to rule on any timely-filed
objections to the magistrate’s decision. See Chan v. Total Abatement Specialist &
Remodelers, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070275, 2008-Ohio-1439, ¶ 8-9; Zwahlen v.
Brown, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070263, 2008-Ohio-151, ¶ 20. A court’s failure to
independently review, and rule on those objections can result in an order that is not
final. See U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Heller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95966, 2011-Ohio-
4410, ¶ 4-5 (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because “trial court did not even
state that it had considered [appellant’s] objections” and collecting cases holding the
same).
{¶11} In this case, the trial court’s entry did not allow the parties to determine
their rights and obligations without reference to the magistrate’s decision. While the
court clearly entered judgment in favor of U.S. Bank, the entry failed to set forth any
details of the decree in foreclosure. Moreover, the court failed to rule on, or even
reference, the objections to the magistrate’s decision. For both of these reasons, the
trial court’s January 26, 2022 entry is not a final appealable order and we are without
jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ZAYAS and BERGERON, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
6