Legal Opinion

Huntington National Bank v. Burch

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 23, 2004No. 2003-CA-52PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Layman v. BinnsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Ohio Savings Bank v. AmbroseOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Michigan Mortgage Corp. v. OakleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Laub v. Warren Guarantee Title Mortgage Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. BelcherOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Deutsche Bank Natl. Co. v. CaldwellOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. Whipps v. RyanOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Farmers State Bank v. SponaugleOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. Natl. Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 v. TignerOhio Court of Appeals · 2018

5 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