The Court of Appeals of Ohio vacated and remanded the trial court's January 5, 2022 judgment in the case of Tax Ease Ohio, L.L.C. v. Harivel Agency, L.L.C., concerning a tax certificate foreclosure action for property located at 3540 Normandy Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio. The plaintiff, Tax Ease Ohio, L.L.C., held a tax certificate against the property owned by defendant-appellee Harivel Agency, L.L.C. Nonparty appellant Snipe City Capital, L.L.C. was the third-party purchaser of the property. The trial court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the deed and vacate previous confirmations of sale, citing that the appellee had properly exercised its right of redemption.
The foreclosure action began in October 2018, with the plaintiff seeking to foreclose under R.C. 5721.01 et seq. After various court proceedings, including a default judgment against Harivel Agency, the trial court confirmed the sale of the property in October 2020. However, in January 2021, the plaintiff moved to set aside the confirmation and dismiss the case, which the trial court granted. The appellate court found that the trial court's ruling was unwarranted and instructed that the prior confirmation entry and judgment be reinstated.
The trial court vacated the deed from a sale, ordered the return of all funds to the appellant, vacated a decree of foreclosure and judgment, and dismissed the case. The appellant argues that the plaintiff-appellee did not prove redemption of the property as required by R.C. Section 5721.01, et seq., to support their Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the deed and vacate prior judgments. Under Civ.R. 60(B), a movant must show (1) a meritorious defense or claim, (2) entitlement to relief based on specific grounds, and (3) that the motion is made within a reasonable time; failure to meet any requirement results in denial of the motion. The trial court's decision on such motions is discretionary and can only be overturned for abuse of discretion, defined as unreasonable or arbitrary actions. The relevant rule allows for relief if a judgment has been satisfied or reversed, or if its prospective application is no longer equitable. The plaintiff claimed it redeemed tax certificates before the confirmation of sale, submitting evidence including a deed and an affidavit from a servicer employee indicating a payment for redemption was made but misclassified due to a data entry error. R.C. 5721.25 states that any person entitled to redeem property may do so by paying outstanding taxes and complying with zoning and safety regulations before confirmation of sale.
A court must verify that a person or entity entitled to redeem land has complied with the requirements of R.C. 5721.25, specifically by tendering sufficient funds to the treasurer to cover delinquent taxes. In Lakeside REO Ventures, LLC v. Vandeleur Investors, the appellant argued that the appellee failed to redeem a delinquency properly. The case involved a dispute over real property where Bates entered a purchase agreement with the previous owner, Otto, during ongoing foreclosure proceedings. Although Bates paid for the property, Postulate was the successful bidder at the sheriff's sale, which was confirmed after Bates's purchase. The court noted that Bates had been aware of the foreclosure and that Otto's failure to redeem the property before the sale confirmation meant he could not transfer valid title to Bates. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Bates, finding that Postulate retained legal title due to the statutory redemption process not being followed correctly. Consequently, the court vacated the trial court’s judgment, reinstated the previous confirmation, and ordered costs to be awarded to the appellant, Tax Ease Ohio, L.L.C.
