[Cite as Bank of New York Mellon v. Cox, 2025-Ohio-4406.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, : CASE NO. CA2025-02-006 Plaintiff, : OPINION AND : JUDGMENT ENTRY - vs - 9/22/2025 :
JAMES T. COX, ET AL., :
Appellees, :
: and :
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., :
Appellant. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CV 20240075
Ulrich, Sassano, Deighton, Delaney, Higgins Co., LPA, and Eric T. Deighton, for appellant, Real Time Resolutions, Inc.
Sandhu Law Group, LLC, and David T. Brady and Suzanne M. Godenswager, for plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon.
James T. Cox and Faith D.B. Cox, pro se. Madison CA2025-02-006
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Real Time Resolutions, Inc. ("Real Time"), appeals the decision
of the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, approving the distribution of funds in a
foreclosure proceeding. Since the trial court's prior orders failed to fully resolve the claims
of an alleged lienholder, we find the trial court erred by ordering the disbursal of funds to
the former property owners. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand
the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On May 8, 2024, the Bank of New York Mellon filed a foreclosure complaint
against James and Faith Cox ("Homeowners") due to a default in the underlying loan.
Real Time was named as a party defendant because it held a junior mortgage interest in
the property.
{¶ 3} Real Time answered the complaint, asserted that it was owed a balance
due of $26,349.83, and attached a copy of the home equity loan agreement. The
Homeowners did not file an answer and on July 26, 2024; the Bank of New York Mellon
filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion on August 2, 2024,
and ordered the foreclosure of the property.
{¶ 4} While the trial court clearly recognized the Bank of New York Mellon's
interest, the findings in its "Foreclosure Decree" regarding Real Time's interest were less
definitive. The court stated:
The Judge further finds that Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. claim some rights, titles, interests, claims, or
-2- Madison CA2025-02-006
liens upon the Premises, as set forth in the pleadings it filed herein, but that any rights, titles, interests, claims, or liens that it may have are inferior and subsequent to the lien of [the Bank of New York Mellon].
The court continued:
While finding that there is no just reason for delay as to [the Bank of New York Mellon's] claim, the Judge makes no finding at this time as to the claims, rights, titles, interests, or liens of the Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. as set forth in its pleadings filed herein, except to note that such claims, rights, titles, interests or liens of the hereinabove Defendant [Real Time] are hereby ordered transferred to the proceeds derived from the sale of said premises, after the payment of the costs of the within action, taxes due and payable and the amount hereinabove found due Plaintiff, and the same is hereby ordered continued until further order.
{¶ 5} The parties were served with notice of the sale, and on November 5, 2024,
the property was sold for $254,400. None of the parties appealed or requested a stay of
the Foreclosure Decree. On December 16, 2024, the trial court entered a "Confirmation
Order" and directed disbursement of the sale proceeds in the following priority:
Court Costs: $963.36 to the Clerk of Courts
Property Taxes: $1,722.06 to the Madison County Treasurer
Closing Fees: $500.00 to Ohio Real Title
Advertisement Costs: $300.00 to Sandhu Law Group, LLC
Transfer Fees: $764.20 to the Madison County Auditor
Recording Fees: $42.00 to the Madison County Recorder
Judgment Payment: $78,858.20 to the Bank of New York Mellon
Remaining Balance: $171,250.18 to be held by the Clerk of Courts pending further court order
{¶ 6} On January 24, 2025, James Cox filed a pro se request for the remaining
funds from the sale. The request lacked a certificate of service and did not indicate that it
-3- Madison CA2025-02-006
had been served on any other parties.1 On January 31, 2025, the trial court granted Cox's
request and ordered the entire remaining balance of $171,250.18 to be distributed to him.
Real Time filed a timely appeal, raising a single assignment of error for review.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} Real Time appeals the trial court's January 31, 2025 order disbursing the
remaining proceeds from the foreclosure sale to the Homeowners. Before addressing the
merits, we must first determine whether the judgment entry being appealed is a final
appealable order.
{¶ 8} An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a non-final order. McConnell
v. Sexton, 2022-Ohio-1894, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). If an order is not final, the appeal must be
dismissed sua sponte. Miller v. UBS Fin. Serv., Inc.,2021-Ohio-891, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 9} Foreclosure actions proceed in two stages, each resulting in a final,
appealable judgment: the foreclosure decree and the confirmation of sale. Farmers State
Bank v. Sponaugle, 2019-Ohio-2518, ¶ 18. The foreclosure decree establishes lien
priorities, defines party rights and responsibilities, and orders the property to be sold.
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 2014-Ohio-1984, ¶ 39; R.C. 2323.07. Once final, and
after the appeals process concludes, the foreclosure decree cannot be challenged.
Roznowski at ¶ 39.
{¶ 10} The confirmation of sale is a limited proceeding focused on whether the
1. Real Time presents an argument concerning the lack of proper service. Due process requires that litigants receive notice that is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Ohio Valley Radiology Associates, Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hospital Assn., 28 Ohio St. 3d 118, 124-25 (1986). However, because remand is appropriate on other grounds—namely, the improper disbursement of funds—we find this issue to be moot. "[A]ctions become moot when resolution of the issues presented is purely academic and will have no practical effect on the legal relations between the parties." Wightman v. Weade, 2019- Ohio-4915, ¶ 28 (12th Dist.). Accordingly, while the lack of service raises procedural concerns, we decline to address it further.
-4- Madison CA2025-02-006
sheriff's sale complied with statutory requirements. Sponaugle at ¶ 19. If the sale
conforms to R.C. 2329.01 through 2329.61, the court confirms the sale and orders
distribution of the proceeds. R.C. 2329.31. Appeals from confirmation orders are
restricted to issues arising from the confirmation itself, such as the final amount owed,
accrued interest, and expenses advanced by the mortgagee. Sponaugle at ¶ 19.
{¶ 11} In this case, none of the parties appealed from the Foreclosure Decree
entered on August 2, 2024, or the Confirmation Order entered December 16, 2024.2 While
those orders typically constitute the final appealable judgments in foreclosure actions, the
Foreclosure Decree here deferred ruling on Real Time's interest while simultaneously
ordering that its interest be transferred to the sale proceeds. Likewise, the Confirmation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Bank of New York Mellon v. Cox, 2025-Ohio-4406.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, : CASE NO. CA2025-02-006 Plaintiff, : OPINION AND : JUDGMENT ENTRY - vs - 9/22/2025 :
JAMES T. COX, ET AL., :
Appellees, :
: and :
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., :
Appellant. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CV 20240075
Ulrich, Sassano, Deighton, Delaney, Higgins Co., LPA, and Eric T. Deighton, for appellant, Real Time Resolutions, Inc.
Sandhu Law Group, LLC, and David T. Brady and Suzanne M. Godenswager, for plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon.
James T. Cox and Faith D.B. Cox, pro se. Madison CA2025-02-006
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Real Time Resolutions, Inc. ("Real Time"), appeals the decision
of the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, approving the distribution of funds in a
foreclosure proceeding. Since the trial court's prior orders failed to fully resolve the claims
of an alleged lienholder, we find the trial court erred by ordering the disbursal of funds to
the former property owners. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand
the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On May 8, 2024, the Bank of New York Mellon filed a foreclosure complaint
against James and Faith Cox ("Homeowners") due to a default in the underlying loan.
Real Time was named as a party defendant because it held a junior mortgage interest in
the property.
{¶ 3} Real Time answered the complaint, asserted that it was owed a balance
due of $26,349.83, and attached a copy of the home equity loan agreement. The
Homeowners did not file an answer and on July 26, 2024; the Bank of New York Mellon
filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion on August 2, 2024,
and ordered the foreclosure of the property.
{¶ 4} While the trial court clearly recognized the Bank of New York Mellon's
interest, the findings in its "Foreclosure Decree" regarding Real Time's interest were less
definitive. The court stated:
The Judge further finds that Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. claim some rights, titles, interests, claims, or
-2- Madison CA2025-02-006
liens upon the Premises, as set forth in the pleadings it filed herein, but that any rights, titles, interests, claims, or liens that it may have are inferior and subsequent to the lien of [the Bank of New York Mellon].
The court continued:
While finding that there is no just reason for delay as to [the Bank of New York Mellon's] claim, the Judge makes no finding at this time as to the claims, rights, titles, interests, or liens of the Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. as set forth in its pleadings filed herein, except to note that such claims, rights, titles, interests or liens of the hereinabove Defendant [Real Time] are hereby ordered transferred to the proceeds derived from the sale of said premises, after the payment of the costs of the within action, taxes due and payable and the amount hereinabove found due Plaintiff, and the same is hereby ordered continued until further order.
{¶ 5} The parties were served with notice of the sale, and on November 5, 2024,
the property was sold for $254,400. None of the parties appealed or requested a stay of
the Foreclosure Decree. On December 16, 2024, the trial court entered a "Confirmation
Order" and directed disbursement of the sale proceeds in the following priority:
Court Costs: $963.36 to the Clerk of Courts
Property Taxes: $1,722.06 to the Madison County Treasurer
Closing Fees: $500.00 to Ohio Real Title
Advertisement Costs: $300.00 to Sandhu Law Group, LLC
Transfer Fees: $764.20 to the Madison County Auditor
Recording Fees: $42.00 to the Madison County Recorder
Judgment Payment: $78,858.20 to the Bank of New York Mellon
Remaining Balance: $171,250.18 to be held by the Clerk of Courts pending further court order
{¶ 6} On January 24, 2025, James Cox filed a pro se request for the remaining
funds from the sale. The request lacked a certificate of service and did not indicate that it
-3- Madison CA2025-02-006
had been served on any other parties.1 On January 31, 2025, the trial court granted Cox's
request and ordered the entire remaining balance of $171,250.18 to be distributed to him.
Real Time filed a timely appeal, raising a single assignment of error for review.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} Real Time appeals the trial court's January 31, 2025 order disbursing the
remaining proceeds from the foreclosure sale to the Homeowners. Before addressing the
merits, we must first determine whether the judgment entry being appealed is a final
appealable order.
{¶ 8} An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a non-final order. McConnell
v. Sexton, 2022-Ohio-1894, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). If an order is not final, the appeal must be
dismissed sua sponte. Miller v. UBS Fin. Serv., Inc.,2021-Ohio-891, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 9} Foreclosure actions proceed in two stages, each resulting in a final,
appealable judgment: the foreclosure decree and the confirmation of sale. Farmers State
Bank v. Sponaugle, 2019-Ohio-2518, ¶ 18. The foreclosure decree establishes lien
priorities, defines party rights and responsibilities, and orders the property to be sold.
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 2014-Ohio-1984, ¶ 39; R.C. 2323.07. Once final, and
after the appeals process concludes, the foreclosure decree cannot be challenged.
Roznowski at ¶ 39.
{¶ 10} The confirmation of sale is a limited proceeding focused on whether the
1. Real Time presents an argument concerning the lack of proper service. Due process requires that litigants receive notice that is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Ohio Valley Radiology Associates, Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hospital Assn., 28 Ohio St. 3d 118, 124-25 (1986). However, because remand is appropriate on other grounds—namely, the improper disbursement of funds—we find this issue to be moot. "[A]ctions become moot when resolution of the issues presented is purely academic and will have no practical effect on the legal relations between the parties." Wightman v. Weade, 2019- Ohio-4915, ¶ 28 (12th Dist.). Accordingly, while the lack of service raises procedural concerns, we decline to address it further.
-4- Madison CA2025-02-006
sheriff's sale complied with statutory requirements. Sponaugle at ¶ 19. If the sale
conforms to R.C. 2329.01 through 2329.61, the court confirms the sale and orders
distribution of the proceeds. R.C. 2329.31. Appeals from confirmation orders are
restricted to issues arising from the confirmation itself, such as the final amount owed,
accrued interest, and expenses advanced by the mortgagee. Sponaugle at ¶ 19.
{¶ 11} In this case, none of the parties appealed from the Foreclosure Decree
entered on August 2, 2024, or the Confirmation Order entered December 16, 2024.2 While
those orders typically constitute the final appealable judgments in foreclosure actions, the
Foreclosure Decree here deferred ruling on Real Time's interest while simultaneously
ordering that its interest be transferred to the sale proceeds. Likewise, the Confirmation
Order did not disburse any proceeds to Real Time or otherwise resolve the uncertainty
arising from the Foreclosure Decree with respect to Real Time's lien status. Instead, the
trial court ordered that the remaining funds—after satisfying the Bank of New York
Mellon's claim—be held by the Clerk of Courts pending further order.
{¶ 12} This procedural posture is significant, as an order that fails to reflect the
necessary components of a foreclosure judgment—such as determining the extent of
each lienholder's interest—is not a final appealable order. See Johnson v. Stone, 2019-
Ohio-4630, ¶ 19 (3rd Dist.) (concluding that order was not a final order because the trial
court did not determine the extent of each lienholder's interest).
{¶ 13} Following the issuance of the Confirmation Order, James Cox filed a pro se
request for the remaining sale proceeds. Up to that point, Real Time had not suffered any
prejudice, as its right to future relief remained intact. However, the January 31 order
2. While the orders stated that they were final appealable orders, such phrases do not transform a nonfinal order into a final appealable one. Baruk v. Heritage Club Homeowners' Assn., 2014-Ohio-1585, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.). -5- Madison CA2025-02-006
changed that. Under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), an order is final and appealable if it affects a
substantial right and effectively determines the action, preventing future relief. A
"substantial right" is one that, if not immediately appealable, would foreclose appropriate
relief later. Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60, 63 (1993); Miller, 2021-Ohio-891
at ¶ 10. By disbursing the remaining proceeds without addressing Real Time's interest,
the trial court effectively foreclosed Real Time's ability to obtain relief. Accordingly, we
conclude that the January 31 order constitutes a final appealable order under R.C.
2505.02(B)(1), and we have jurisdiction to review it.
{¶ 14} Turning to the sole assignment of error, Real Time argues that the trial court
erred in disbursing the proceeds from the foreclosure sale to the Homeowners while its
lien remained unsatisfied. Although property owners are entitled to any excess proceeds
from a foreclosure sale, their claims are subordinate to those of mortgagees or lienholder
with valid, senior interests. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn of Cleveland v. Strong, 2015-Ohio-
3009, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.), citing Stidham v. Wallace, 2013-Ohio-2640, ¶ 12, fn. 1 (12th Dist.).
Foreclosure proceeds must first be applied to satisfy superior claims before any
distribution to the property owner. See Stidham at ¶ 12.
{¶ 15} In this case, the Bank of New York Mellon initiated foreclosure proceedings
against the Homeowners, alleging default on the underlying loan. Real Time, named as
a defendant, answered the complaint and asserted a lien interest in the property. The trial
court's Foreclosure Decree was imprecise: while it found Real Time's interest to be inferior
to the Bank of New York Mellon's, it expressly declined to adjudicate the extent of Real
Time's claims, instead ordering that its interest be transferred to the sale proceeds.
{¶ 16} Following the sale of the property, the trial court entered the Confirmation
Order directing disbursement of the proceeds. The Bank of New York Mellon's claim was
-6- Madison CA2025-02-006
satisfied, and the court ordered the remaining balance of $171,250.18 be "held by the
Clerk of Courts pending further court order." Despite previously indicating that Real
Time's interest would be paid from the sale proceeds, the trial court subsequently
disbursed the remaining funds to the Homeowners without accounting for Real Time's
interest. This disbursement to the Homeowners was in error. Accordingly, we find the trial
court erred by awarding the remaining funds to the Homeowners. Real Time's sole
assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 17} Judgment reversed and remanded.
PIPER , P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law and consistent with the above Opinion.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Madison County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
-7-