Huntington Natl. Bank v. Cade

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 4701

Syllabus

Sheriff's sale foreclosure confirmation of decree final order assignment of bidder R.C. 2329.30 contempt. Judgment affirmed. Trial court's judgments denying defendant's motion to assign bidder and finding defendant in contempt was proper. This court has previously found that an assignment is not proper postconfirmation of the sale because the confirmation of the sheriff's sale is a special proceeding and is a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2). Once the trial court confirms the sale, the order of confirmation becomes dispositive as to the propriety of the sale and the sale confirmation procedures unless the trial court properly vacates the confirmation pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Here, the defendant's motion to assign or substitute a new bidder was filed two months after the trial court had already issued the decree of confirmation of the sale. This decree was a final order, and the bid had been accepted, closed, and confirmed. Because the bidding process was closed and the bid was confirmed, the bid could no longer be assigned. In addition, a review of the record reveals that defendant did not move to vacate the confirmation under Civ.R. 60(B). Therefore, defendant could not assign the bidder postconfirmation of the sale. Moreover, under R.C. 2329.30, the trial court may issue a contempt order if the purchaser fails to timely pay the remainder of the balance after the sheriff's sale. Here, the defendant had not paid the remainder of the balance more than four months after the sheriff's sale.