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.
Bank of Am. v. Telerico
Citation: 2014 Ohio 434Docket: 2013-P-0069
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; February 9, 2014; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Bank of America v. Telerico, the Eleventh Appellate District Court of Ohio dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved Bank of America, as the successor in interest to Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation, which had filed a foreclosure complaint against Louis A. Telerico and others on August 23, 2011. After Telerico's response and counterclaims, the court granted Bank of America summary judgment on April 15, 2013, ordering Telerico to pay $2,999,985 plus interest and costs, and establishing Bank of America’s mortgage as the first lien on the property. Telerico subsequently filed a notice of appeal on August 22, 2013. The appellate court needed to determine whether the trial court's order constituted a “final order” under Ohio law, which is essential for jurisdiction. According to R.C. 2505.02, a judgment is deemed final if it meets specific criteria. The court noted that without a final order, it lacks jurisdiction to review the appeal, leading to its dismissal. An order affecting a substantial right can be appealable if it falls under specific categories, including those that vacate a judgment, grant a new trial, or affect provisional remedies. For R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) to apply, the order must originate from a special proceeding, which excludes foreclosure actions as such actions existed prior to 1853. Consequently, R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) does not apply. The July 23, 2013 entry does not vacate a judgment, grant a provisional remedy, address class actions, or assess the constitutionality of legislation, thus R.C. 2505.02(B)(3) and (6) are also inapplicable. For R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) to apply, the order must affect a substantial right and prevent further judgment. A judgment entry that orders foreclosure and proceeds distribution is typically considered final and appealable. However, a ruling that merely affirms a valid lien without issuing a foreclosure order does not constitute a final appealable order. The court has established that an entry must resolve all issues related to the foreclosure, including the issuance of a sale order and the prioritization of liens. In this case, the July 23, 2013 entry only confirmed a valid lien and did not include language to proceed with foreclosure, indicating it is not a final order but a preliminary step. Therefore, without a final decree of foreclosure, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Additionally, including Civ.R. 54(B) language in a non-final order does not change its status. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed due to the absence of a final appealable order.