Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bank of America, N.A. filed a complaint in foreclosure against George and Bridget Kuchta, claiming to be the holder of a promissory note and assignee of the mortgage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank and entered a decree of foreclosure in its favor. The Kuchtas moved to vacate the summary judgment and decree of foreclosure, arguing that the bank lacked standing to commence the action because it did not prove ownership of the note and because the mortgage assignment was fatally flawed. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that standing is a jurisdictional matter and that Bank of America’s alleged lack of standing would warrant relief from judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a lack of standing cannot support a motion for relief from judgment, and lack of standing does not render a judgment void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Defendant breached certain leases by failing to provide separate meters for utilities inside the leased premises. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered Defendant to install separate meters for utilities within thirty days. Although Defendant subsequently provided separate meters for the leased premises, the trial court found Dashing Pacific in contempt of court and ordered it to correct certain distribution systems within thirty days or the court would impose a fine of $1,000 per day until Defendant complied with the order. Defendant appealed. The court of appeals denied Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal, concluding that a contempt citation is final and appealable if it includes both a finding of contempt and pronouncement of a penalty or sanction, even though the order contains purge conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a court order finding a party in contempt and imposing a sentence conditioned on the failure to purge is final and appealable on the issue of whether the party is in contempt of court. View "Docks Venture, LLC v. Dashing Pac. Group, Ltd." on Justia Law

For the tax year 2008, Appellant, a property owner and taxpayer, filed four valuation complaints challenging the Summit County Fiscal Officer’s valuation of seven parcels. The Summit County Board of Revision (BOR) rejected Appellant’s requests for decreased valuations for lack of probative evidence. On appeal, Appellant urged the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) to adopt to certain properties the contractual allocation of the purchase price of a large industrial-warehouse business Appellant sold in 2010. The BTA found that the values determined by the fiscal officer and the BOR should be retained, concluding that the 2010 sale included some but not all of the parcels at issue as well as parcels that were not at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in concluding that the allocation evidence did not suffice to establish the value of the properties; and (2) Appellant failed to discharge its burden to show the propriety of an allocated sale price. View "RNG Props., Ltd. v. Summit County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellants owned the mineral rights and the State owned the surface rights to a certain tract of land. When the property was transferred to the State, the seller reserved all mineral rights and “reasonable surface right privileges.” Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that they were entitled to surface-mine a reasonable portion of the property. The court of common pleas granted summary judgment for the State, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contract entitled Appellants to surface-mine the property, subject to the reasonableness standard of the contract. Remanded. View "Snyder v. Ohio Dep’t of Natural Res." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Ohio Rev. Code 5721.25 permits a mortgage holder to redeem the mortgaged property when it is the subject of a tax foreclosure proceeding. Here, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (Vanderbilt) was the holder of both a promissory note and mortgage on certain property. Due to the mortgagors’ failure to pay taxes on the property, the county treasurer initiated a tax foreclosure proceeding for delinquent taxes. The question before the trial court was whether Vanderbilt had the right to redeem. The trial court concluded that Vanderbilt was a “person entitled to redeem” under section 5721.25, granted Vanderbilt’s motion to stay the confirmation of sale and to vacate and set aside the sheriff’s sale. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Vanderbilt was not entitled to redeem the property. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) “any person entitled to redeem the land” under section 5721.25 includes “any owner or lienholder of, or other person with an interest in” the property as set forth in section 5721.181; and (2) therefore, Vanderbilt, as a lienholder, was entitled to redeem the land. Remanded. View "In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a commercial building consisting of a warehouse and office space. The tax year at issue was 2005. The property owner disagreed with the auditor’s valuation of the subject property and filed a complaint seeking a reduction. Before the Board of Revision (BOR) the owner presented a value using the income approach as an “owner’s opinion of value.” The BOR found the valuation evidence “competent, credible, and probative” and adopted the value suggested by that approach. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reinstated the auditor’s determination of value, determining that the income-approach valuation did not qualify as an admissible owner’s opinion and was not probative evidence of value in any event. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the BTA, holding (1) certain expert testimony coupled with the income-approach valuation was competent evidence of value; and (2) the BTA may not revert to the auditor’s value when the BOR relied on competent evidence. View "Worthington City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In 2006, U-Store-It, L.P. acquired several self-storage facilities in Franklin County in a bulk purchase. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopted the 2006 sale prices as the value of those properties for the 2006 tax year. U-Store-It appealed, arguing (1) the sale involved related parties and thus could not qualify as an arm’s-length transaction for purposes of valuing the properties; and (2) the sale prices could not be used because they included consideration paid for personal property as well as real property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in adopting the 2006 sale prices as the value of the properties at issue. View "Hilliard City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Defendants executed a promissory note in favor of FirstMerit Bank secured by a mortgage on several parcels of real estate. After Defendants defaulted on the promissory note, FirstBank initiated foreclosure proceedings. The common pleas court entered a decree in foreclosure, and the properties were sold at auction. Because the sale of the properties resulted in a deficiency, FirstMerit obtained a cognovit judgment against Defendants. Defendants moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Ohio R. Civ. P. 60(B), asserting as a defense that they had reached an oral settlement agreement with FirstMerit under which FirstMerit had agreed to cease legal proceedings and release Defendants from their obligations. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the statute of frauds barred their defense. The appellate court reversed, determining that Ohio Rev. Code 1335.05 did not prohibit Defendants from raising as a defense that the parties orally agreed to modify the terms of their agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the oral agreement in this case fell within the statute of frauds, and therefore, Defendants were precluded from raising the agreement as a defense in a motion for relief from judgment. View "FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Inks" on Justia Law

Appellant purchased property in 2004 for $7.4 million. For the tax-year 2006, the County auditor set the value at $8 million. Appellant filed a complaint with the County Board of Revision (BOR) seeking a decrease in value to $5 million, an amount close to the sale price of the property in 2003. After a hearing, the BOR reduced the property value from $8 million to the 2004 sale price of $7.4 million. Appellant appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). The BTA upheld the $7.4 million sale price as the best evidence of value. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA’s decision to adopt the $7.4 million sale price from 2004 as the property’s value for the tax-year 2006 was not unreasonable or unlawful. View "HIN, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In 2008, the county auditor assigned a value of approximately $5 million to certain property located in the Mason City School District. The former owner of the property subsequently filed a valuation complaint seeking a reduction from the auditor’s valuation. The Warren County Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the value. The Mason City School District Board of Education appealed. After a hearing, the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) raised the value of the property, concluding that the 2006 sale price of $5,350,000 was the value of the property as of 2008. After the BTA hearing and before the BTA issued its decision, Squire Hill Properties II, LLC acquired the property. Squire Hill appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) under the circumstances, the BTA was not required to give Squire Hill notice of the BTR hearing; but (2) the BTA erred by not properly considering the finding of the BOR that the 2006 sale was not recent in regard to the tax-lien date. Remanded. View "Mason City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Warren County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law