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 CourtListenerCited 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.
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 14,330×
- Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court· 1996-11-13· cited 3,715×
- Murphy v. City of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court· 1992-12-11· cited 1,496×
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court· 1998-06-29· cited 1,213×
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. GibbsOhio Supreme Court· 1991-05-29· cited 245×
- Bissell v. CouchaineOhio Supreme Court· 1846-12-15· cited 54×
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-12-16· cited 37×
- Schiff v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court· 1967-01-18· cited 28×
- Wolfe v. City of AvonOhio Supreme Court· 1984-06-06· cited 21×
- Park National Bank v. Cattani, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2010-03-29· cited 15×
- State v. CampbellOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-11-03· cited 14×
- Director of Transportation v. Eastlake Land Development Co.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2008-06-26· cited 11×
- C.I.V.I.C. Group v. City of WarrenOhio Supreme Court· 2000-02-16· cited 11×
- National City Bank v. Semco, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2009-07-06· cited 10×
- Huntington National Bank v. Motel 4 BAPS, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2010-11-24· cited 10×
- Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. BrownOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-05-17· cited 7×
- Wells Fargo Bank v. SchwartzOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-03-08· cited 6×
- Huntington Bank, L.L.C. v. Prospect Park, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2012-07-19· cited 5×
- Acacia on the Green Condo. Assn., Inc. v. JeffersonOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-02-04· cited 5×
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. CoffmanOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-08-28· cited 4×
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.