Legal Opinion

Hausman v. Dayton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 1995No. 1993-0349PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 73 Ohio St.3d 671.] HAUSMAN ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS; BANCOHIO NATIONAL BANK, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. CITY OF DAYTON, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. [Cite as Hausman v. Dayton,

1995-Ohio-277.] Real property—Effect of default by mortgagor on legal title—Right of redemption is the mortgagor’s right to take prescribed action to satisfy a debt secured by a mortgage and therefore cannot be construed as a “setoff,” 1. After a mortgagor defaults, legal title passes to the mortgagee only as between the mortgagor and the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mominee v. ScherbarthOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Geiger v. GeigerOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  3. State ex rel. Maurer v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Hausman v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Schneider v. LaffoonOhio Supreme Court · 1965

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. Noling (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Kramer v. Angel's Path, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Abroms v. Synergy Bldg. Sys.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API