Skip to main content

Williams v. Schneider

Citations

  • 2017 Ohio 9152
  • 107 N.E.3d 581

Syllabus

R.C. Chapter 727/special assessments valid lien R.C. 2735.04/trial court's authority to establish receiver's power lien priority motion to strike affidavits Civ.R. 56(E)/requirements for submitted affidavits proper legal description constructive notice receivership orders motion for leave limitation of secured claim. The city of Parma Heights did not fail in substantially complying with R.C. Chapter 727 the trial court erred in finding that its special assessment lien was invalid the trial court's ordering the sale of the property to be free and clear of all liens and claims was in the best interest of the receivership estate and was not an abuse of discretion and statutory liens created by legislature gives the city precedence over all other attached liens - - the trial court erred in finding that the city's special assessment did not take priority. Individual testimony given was based on personal knowledge and familiarity with the project, not as expert testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike their witness affidavits. The mortgage document contained sufficient enough information to identify the property being secured and give constructive notice. The trial court's granting of summary judgment was proper. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the receiver to pay relevant expenses necessary to preserve the value of the assets. The receiver's authorized performance did not fall outside of the scope of R.C. 2735.04. The trial court, however, did err in ordering the remaining balance of the account to be distributed either to remaining unsecured creditors or charity where there are secured parties. This court does not conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for leave to file a reply brief. The trial court has broad discretion in managing its docket, and here, the trial court issued a journal entry setting a briefing schedule to which all parties agreed and state

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.