I find nothing particularly stunning
or novel about this Davet
appellate decision. It seems fairly routine
This is NOT an appeal of the cases Davet has brought concerning the bank's foreclosure of his residential property
, which is another matter. This is another different foreclosure matter pertaining to a tax foreclosure of another different property.
Unlike the cases which Davet failed to timely appeal and has uniformly lost
, Davet seems to have made a timely motion to vacate and filed timely appeals in this different case.
The appellate court's decision does NOT restore the subject property to Davet. Rather, it seems only to vacate the premature dismissal of his suit.
On the facts recited, it was clearly error for the trial court to dismiss Davet's case on the defendant's motion for summary judgemnt in respect of disputed fact issues, which expressly precludes summary judgment. The appellate court has simply noted that there was disputed record evidence showing possible completing claims to entitlement to bring about a tax foreclosure sale. Either the purchaser of the tax certificates had the right to foreclose or the county had the right to foreclose, but NOT both.
Lets not get all breathless about the implications of this most recent Davet decision. The court did NOT find that a distressed borrower can make an untimely collateral attack on a final judgment and did NOT even find that the judgment was void in this case. They simply found that there were disputed fact issues that needed to be properly resolved by the trial court.
Read the decision, but hold the champagne:http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2013/2013-ohio-31.pdf
I want to complement Rick on his insightful analysis. Rick is correct that this case is a rather ordinary ruling showing that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment when there was a dispute of fact. Nothing more can be taken from this ruling.
Dick Davet doesn't get his house back. This case has no impact whatsoever on Davet's cases relating to the bank's judicial foreclosure of his personal residence. Dick lost his house and has already lost multiple appeals.
In this case, Dick's suit regarding a tax foreclosure of another different property is simply reinstated and may go to trial.
Best of success to Dick in his trial on this issue, but anyone that thinks that this changes the landscape for foreclosure in Ohio is simply ignorant and/or delusional.