Huntington National Bank v. Burch
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Fain, Presiding Judge.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Huntington National Bank appeals from an order setting aside and vacating a sale of property in a foreclosure action. Huntington National Bank contends that the trial court abused its discretion because (1) it failed to protect the interests of the mortgagor/debtor and the mortgagee/creditor; (2) it failed to give finality to the judicial sale; and (3) it failed to apply the doctrine of caveat emptor.
{¶ 2} Although a trial court must, pursuant to R.C. 2329.31, confirm a sale of property that is in conformity with R.C. 2329.01 to R.C. 2329.61, we…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Layman v. BinnsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Ohio Savings Bank v. AmbroseOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Michigan Mortgage Corp. v. OakleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
- Laub v. Warren Guarantee Title Mortgage Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. BelcherOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Co. v. CaldwellOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Whipps v. RyanOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Farmers State Bank v. SponaugleOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
- Natl. Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 v. TignerOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.