[Cite as PrimeLending, A PlainsCapital Co. v. Milhoan, 2020-Ohio-3703.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL JUDGES: COMPANY Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- Case No. 2019 CA 00115
DEBRA E. MILHOAN, ET AL. OPINION Defendants-Appellants
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2019 CV 00781
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 14, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
RICK D. DEBLASIS BRYAN D. THOMAS WILLIAM P. LEAMAN THE LAW OFFICES OF LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS BRYAN D. THOMAS, LLC 120 East Fourth Street, Suite 800 490 City Park Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Columbus, Ohio 43215 «Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 2
Wise, John, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Debra E. Milhoan appeals the October 8, 2019,
decision of the Licking County Common Pleas Court denying her Civ.R. 60(B) motion to
vacate default judgment entered in favor of Appellee PrimeLending.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
{¶3} On July 30, 2019, Appellee PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company, filed
a Complaint in Foreclosure based on an alleged default under the terms of a certain note
and mortgage executed by Appellant Debra E. Milhoan and Roy E. Milhoan. The
mortgage encumbers real property located at 800 Whitehead Drive, Pataskala, Licking
County, Ohio. Mr. Milhoan passed away prior to the filing of the Complaint and was not
named as a defendant in the case.
{¶4} Service of process was completed on all defendants. The Return of Service
from the Licking County Sheriff states that the Sheriff's Deputy completed residence
service on Appellant on July 31, 2019, by leaving a copy of the summons and copy of the
Complaint at the mortgaged property with "Amber - Daughter-in-Law."
{¶5} Appellant did not respond to the Complaint.
{¶6} On September 4, 2019, Appellee PrimeLending filed a Motion for Default
Judgment against Appellant Debra E. Milhoan.
{¶7} On September 5, 2019, the trial court granted the motion for default
judgment.
{¶8} On September 19, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Vacate this Court's
September 5, 2019 Judgment Entry, Pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). In said Motion and Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 3
supporting Affidavit, Appellant claimed that she did not have notice of the case and asked
that the trial court vacate the foreclosure judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and/or (5). In
her Affidavit, Appellant testified that Amber did not reside at Appellant's premises at the
time of the Motion to Vacate.
{¶9} On October 8, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant's Motion to Vacate,
finding "Defendant's motion recites a list of various foreclosure defenses, but does not
allege any operative facts to suggest any of these defenses apply in this case, nor does
her affidavit support any alleged defense."
{¶10} On November 1, 2019, the mortgaged property was sold at Sheriff’s sale to
Hatfield Enterprises.
{¶11} On November 4, 2019, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from the trial
court's order denying her Motion to Vacate.
{¶12} On November 6, 2019, Appellant filed a "Motion to Stay any and all
Subsequent Foreclosure Proceedings and/or Confirmation of Sale until Resolution of
Appeal Currently Pending in the Fifth Appellate District". The Motion to Stay requested a
stay of all proceedings in the case, including the confirmation of the sale during her
appeal, and asked the trial court to waive the bond requirement. The trial court granted
Appellant's Motion to Stay, but conditioned the stay on the posting of a bond in the amount
of $25,000.00.
{¶13} Appellant did not post the bond; nor did she challenge the amount of the
bond in the trial court or this Court.
{¶14} On November 14, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Set Aside and/or Vacate
the Sheriff Sale on October 31, 2019. Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 4
{¶15} On December 17, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the motion.
{¶16} On December 18, 2019, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶17} On February 6, 2020, the trial court confirmed the sale and ordered
distribution of the sale proceeds.
{¶18} Appellant did not ask the trial court to stay the distribution of the sale
proceeds and did not appeal the confirmation entry.
{¶19} Appellant raises the following assignments of error1 for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶20} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 JUDGMENT ENTRY BASED ON CIV. R. 60(B)(1) AND/OR (5).
{¶21} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 JUDGMENT ENTRY PURSUANT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S
POLICY AND "LONGSTANDING PRACTICE" WITH RESPECT TO ADJUDICATING
MATTERS ON THEIR MERITS AS OPPOSED TO PROCEDURAL DEFECTS.
{¶22} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 ENTRY, WHEN IT FOUND THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT
ASSERT MERITORIOUS DEFENSES.
{¶23} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 ENTRY, BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE HER VALID CLAIMS AND DEFENSES, INCLUDING, BUT
1We have taken Appellant’s Assignments of Error from the Table of Contents rather than the Statement Regarding Assignments of Error as said Statement Regarding Assignments of Error and the following Statement of Issues Presented for Review reference “Huntington’s Motion for Summary Judgment” and appear to address an entirely different case. Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 5
NOT LIMITED TO, THE VALIDITY OF THE MORTGAGE, THE APPRAISED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY, PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES, THE AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY
DUE AND OWING UNDER THE MORTGAGE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF VIOLATED THE
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT AND/OR FAlR DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, ALLOCATION OF PAYMENTS, EQUITABLE
ESTOPPEL, BAD FAITH, AND/OR FRAUD.”
I., II., III., IV.
{¶24} Upon review of the record, we find that Appellant failed to obtain a stay of
execution after the trial court issued the decree in foreclosure, failed to request a stay of
the distribution of proceeds, and failed to appeal the confirmation entry. Appellant also
failed to post an appeal bond. While this appeal was pending, the property at issue was
sold at sheriff's sale, the trial court confirmed the sale, and the proceeds were distributed.
The judgment in this case has been satisfied.
{¶25} As a result, we find this appeal to be moot.
{¶26} “Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court "is not empowered
to decide moot questions or abstract propositions.” JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v. Hansen,
5th Dist. Delaware No. 18 CAE 11 0086, 2019-Ohio-4424; State v. Feister, 5th Dist.
Tuscarawas No. 2018 AP 01 0005, 2018-Ohio-2336, 2018 WL 3019219, ¶ 28 quoting
United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116, 40 S.Ct. 448, 449, 64 L.Ed. 808
(1920), quoting California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876,
878, 37 L.Ed. 747 (1893); Accord, North Carolina v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as PrimeLending, A PlainsCapital Co. v. Milhoan, 2020-Ohio-3703.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL JUDGES: COMPANY Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- Case No. 2019 CA 00115
DEBRA E. MILHOAN, ET AL. OPINION Defendants-Appellants
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2019 CV 00781
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 14, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
RICK D. DEBLASIS BRYAN D. THOMAS WILLIAM P. LEAMAN THE LAW OFFICES OF LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS BRYAN D. THOMAS, LLC 120 East Fourth Street, Suite 800 490 City Park Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Columbus, Ohio 43215 «Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 2
Wise, John, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Debra E. Milhoan appeals the October 8, 2019,
decision of the Licking County Common Pleas Court denying her Civ.R. 60(B) motion to
vacate default judgment entered in favor of Appellee PrimeLending.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
{¶3} On July 30, 2019, Appellee PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company, filed
a Complaint in Foreclosure based on an alleged default under the terms of a certain note
and mortgage executed by Appellant Debra E. Milhoan and Roy E. Milhoan. The
mortgage encumbers real property located at 800 Whitehead Drive, Pataskala, Licking
County, Ohio. Mr. Milhoan passed away prior to the filing of the Complaint and was not
named as a defendant in the case.
{¶4} Service of process was completed on all defendants. The Return of Service
from the Licking County Sheriff states that the Sheriff's Deputy completed residence
service on Appellant on July 31, 2019, by leaving a copy of the summons and copy of the
Complaint at the mortgaged property with "Amber - Daughter-in-Law."
{¶5} Appellant did not respond to the Complaint.
{¶6} On September 4, 2019, Appellee PrimeLending filed a Motion for Default
Judgment against Appellant Debra E. Milhoan.
{¶7} On September 5, 2019, the trial court granted the motion for default
judgment.
{¶8} On September 19, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Vacate this Court's
September 5, 2019 Judgment Entry, Pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). In said Motion and Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 3
supporting Affidavit, Appellant claimed that she did not have notice of the case and asked
that the trial court vacate the foreclosure judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and/or (5). In
her Affidavit, Appellant testified that Amber did not reside at Appellant's premises at the
time of the Motion to Vacate.
{¶9} On October 8, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant's Motion to Vacate,
finding "Defendant's motion recites a list of various foreclosure defenses, but does not
allege any operative facts to suggest any of these defenses apply in this case, nor does
her affidavit support any alleged defense."
{¶10} On November 1, 2019, the mortgaged property was sold at Sheriff’s sale to
Hatfield Enterprises.
{¶11} On November 4, 2019, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from the trial
court's order denying her Motion to Vacate.
{¶12} On November 6, 2019, Appellant filed a "Motion to Stay any and all
Subsequent Foreclosure Proceedings and/or Confirmation of Sale until Resolution of
Appeal Currently Pending in the Fifth Appellate District". The Motion to Stay requested a
stay of all proceedings in the case, including the confirmation of the sale during her
appeal, and asked the trial court to waive the bond requirement. The trial court granted
Appellant's Motion to Stay, but conditioned the stay on the posting of a bond in the amount
of $25,000.00.
{¶13} Appellant did not post the bond; nor did she challenge the amount of the
bond in the trial court or this Court.
{¶14} On November 14, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Set Aside and/or Vacate
the Sheriff Sale on October 31, 2019. Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 4
{¶15} On December 17, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the motion.
{¶16} On December 18, 2019, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶17} On February 6, 2020, the trial court confirmed the sale and ordered
distribution of the sale proceeds.
{¶18} Appellant did not ask the trial court to stay the distribution of the sale
proceeds and did not appeal the confirmation entry.
{¶19} Appellant raises the following assignments of error1 for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶20} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 JUDGMENT ENTRY BASED ON CIV. R. 60(B)(1) AND/OR (5).
{¶21} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 JUDGMENT ENTRY PURSUANT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S
POLICY AND "LONGSTANDING PRACTICE" WITH RESPECT TO ADJUDICATING
MATTERS ON THEIR MERITS AS OPPOSED TO PROCEDURAL DEFECTS.
{¶22} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 ENTRY, WHEN IT FOUND THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT
ASSERT MERITORIOUS DEFENSES.
{¶23} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE ITS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 ENTRY, BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE HER VALID CLAIMS AND DEFENSES, INCLUDING, BUT
1We have taken Appellant’s Assignments of Error from the Table of Contents rather than the Statement Regarding Assignments of Error as said Statement Regarding Assignments of Error and the following Statement of Issues Presented for Review reference “Huntington’s Motion for Summary Judgment” and appear to address an entirely different case. Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 5
NOT LIMITED TO, THE VALIDITY OF THE MORTGAGE, THE APPRAISED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY, PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES, THE AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY
DUE AND OWING UNDER THE MORTGAGE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF VIOLATED THE
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT AND/OR FAlR DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, ALLOCATION OF PAYMENTS, EQUITABLE
ESTOPPEL, BAD FAITH, AND/OR FRAUD.”
I., II., III., IV.
{¶24} Upon review of the record, we find that Appellant failed to obtain a stay of
execution after the trial court issued the decree in foreclosure, failed to request a stay of
the distribution of proceeds, and failed to appeal the confirmation entry. Appellant also
failed to post an appeal bond. While this appeal was pending, the property at issue was
sold at sheriff's sale, the trial court confirmed the sale, and the proceeds were distributed.
The judgment in this case has been satisfied.
{¶25} As a result, we find this appeal to be moot.
{¶26} “Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court "is not empowered
to decide moot questions or abstract propositions.” JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v. Hansen,
5th Dist. Delaware No. 18 CAE 11 0086, 2019-Ohio-4424; State v. Feister, 5th Dist.
Tuscarawas No. 2018 AP 01 0005, 2018-Ohio-2336, 2018 WL 3019219, ¶ 28 quoting
United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116, 40 S.Ct. 448, 449, 64 L.Ed. 808
(1920), quoting California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876,
878, 37 L.Ed. 747 (1893); Accord, North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct.
402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). Because mootness is a jurisdictional question, the question Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 6
of mootness is one that must be addressed even if the parties do not raise it. North
Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. at 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413.
{¶27} Ohio courts have long exercised judicial restraint in cases that are not actual
controversies. Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371, 372 (1970). No
actual controversy exists where a case has been rendered moot by an outside event. “It
is not the duty of the court to answer moot questions, and when, pending proceedings in
error in this court, an event occurs without the fault of either party, which renders it
impossible for the court to grant any relief, it will dismiss the petition in error.” Miner v.
Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), syllabus; Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d
131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (1991).
{¶28} Multiple appellate districts, including this Court, have held that an appeal of
a foreclosure is moot once the property is sold and the proceeds are distributed. Meadow
Wind Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. McInnes, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2002CA00319, 2003-Ohio-
979; PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v. Marker, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 18 JE 0024, 2019-
Ohio-4088, 2019 WL 4898489, ¶ 29; U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Marcino, 7th Dist. Jefferson
No. 09 JE 2010, 2010-Ohio-6512; U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Janossy, 2018-
Ohio-2228, 114 N.E.3d 668 (8th Dist.); Art's Rental Equip., Inc. v. Bear Creek Const.,
L.L.C., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110544, C-110555, C-110558, C-110559, C-110564, C-
110785, C-110792, C-110797, C-110798, C-110799, C-110800, C-110801, C-110808,
C-120309, 2012-Ohio-5371.
{¶29} The duty of a court of appeals is to decide controversies between parties by
a judgment which can be carried into effect, and the court need not render an advisory
opinion on a moot question or a question of law that cannot affect the issues in a case. Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00116 7
Thus, when circumstances prevent an appellate court from granting relief in a case, the
mootness doctrine precludes consideration of those issues. Schwab v. Lattimore, 1st
Dist., 166 Ohio App.3d 12, 2006-Ohio-1372, 848 N.E.2d 912, ¶ 10 (Internal citations
omitted).
{¶30} Because there is no remedy this Court can legally order and this appeal
constitutes only a request for an advisory ruling, we find this appeal is moot.
{¶31} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s appeal from the judgment of the
Licking County Court of Common Pleas is dismissed.
By: Wise, John, J.
Hoffman, P. J., and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.
JWW/k 0709 «Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 8