Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pramco CV6, L.L.C. v. Aberdeen Invests., Inc.
Citation: 2014 Ohio 32Docket: 100130
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; January 8, 2014; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Pramco CV6, L.L.C. v. Aberdeen Investments, Inc., the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision denying the Caldwells' motion to void a 2009 judgment and quash bank attachment proceedings initiated by ACM Browncroft Trust. The case originated from a foreclosure action filed by Pramco CV6, L.L.C. against Aberdeen Investments, Inc. and the Caldwells for a default mortgage on a property at 6012 Linwood Avenue. Following a judgment against the defendants and the property's sale, Sopramco assigned its judgment to ACM Browncroft in 2013. The Caldwells contended that the collection actions were barred by a two-year statute of limitations and argued that their deceased son had executed the mortgage, thus implicating protections under R.C. 2329.08. ACM Browncroft countered that the son's shareholder status did not equate to execution of the mortgage. The trial court found the Caldwells did not provide sufficient evidence for their claims and denied their motion. The appellate court upheld this decision, noting that the trial court has discretion in such matters, which was not abused in this instance. The Caldwells did not contest the legality of the attachment proceedings on appeal, leaving that issue unaddressed. The Caldwells appeal citing R.C. 2329.08, which states that judgments for money secured by a mortgage on real property with a dwelling for not more than two families become unenforceable for deficiencies after two years from a judicial sale confirmation. To qualify for relief, the property must either have been used as a home or held as a homestead by the mortgagor or be designated as a homesite. The Caldwells assert that their son James used the property as a homesite; however, the Ohio Supreme Court defines a "homesite" as a location suitable for a home, while "homestead" refers to an actual dwelling place. Since a dwelling already exists on the property, the "homesite" provision does not apply. The court clarifies that the mortgage was executed by Aberdeen, a corporate entity, with James T. Caldwell, Sr. acting as president and also signing individually with Barbara G. Caldwell. James T. Caldwell, Jr., as a shareholder, did not sign the mortgage, and his status does not provide the protections under R.C. 2329.08. Consequently, the appeal is denied, the assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed, with costs taxed to the appellants. The court orders a special mandate for execution of the judgment.