Title: Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Nichpor

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing v. Nichpor, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-2083.] 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-2083 
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., APPELLEE, v. NICHPOR ET AL., 
APPELLANTS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing v. Nichpor,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-2083.] 
Voluntary dismissals—Foreclosure—After a judgment entry grants a decree of 
foreclosure and order of sale, the foreclosure action cannot be dismissed 
pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), because that rule pertains only to the 
voluntary dismissal of a pending case. 
(No. 2012-0578—Submitted February 26, 2013—Decided May 28, 2013.) 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Wood County, 
No. WD-11-047, 2012-Ohio-1101. 
____________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
After a judgment entry grants a decree of foreclosure and order of sale, the 
foreclosure action cannot be dismissed pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), 
because that rule pertains only to the voluntary dismissal of a pending 
case. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
____________________ 
  
O’NEILL, J. 
{¶ 1} In a foreclosure action, the mortgage company filed a notice of 
voluntary dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), after a default judgment had 
been entered in favor of the mortgage company and the property was sold at a 
sheriff’s sale. The mortgage company then refiled its complaint in foreclosure.  
The trial court rejected the borrowers’ claim that the action was precluded by res 
judicata and again granted an order of foreclosure.  The appellate court affirmed, 
concluding that a foreclosure action is a two-part process consisting of an order of 
foreclosure and an order confirming the sheriff’s sale, and that until the order 
confirming the sheriff’s sale is entered, the plaintiff may terminate the case 
without prejudice by filing a Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) notice of voluntary dismissal. For 
the reasons that follow, we disagree and reverse the decision of the Court of 
Appeals. The outcome reached by the Sixth District Court of Appeals is in 
contravention of Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a).  We hold that a judgment of foreclosure 
cannot be dissolved by the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to 
Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) after a trial court has entered judgment on the underlying note. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 2} On February 27, 2009, appellee, Countrywide Home Loans 
Servicing, L.P., filed a complaint in foreclosure in the Wood County Court of 
Common Pleas against appellants, Michael P. and Joanne M. Nichpor.  The trial 
court granted judgment on the mortgage note in favor of Countrywide on May 18, 
2009.  That judgment included Civ.R. 54(B) language that “[t]here is no just 
reason for delay.”  Subsequently, a writ was issued for an order of sale.  The 
sheriff’s sale was conducted on July 1, 2010, and the property was purchased by a 
third party, Jennifer Reichert.  On July 12, appellee filed a notice of voluntary 
dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A).  On August 3, the trial court declared the 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
matter dismissed because of the voluntary dismissal filed by appellee and 
declared all pending motions moot. 
{¶ 3} Appellee refiled the complaint on July 16, 2010. The trial court 
granted summary judgment in favor of appellee on August 5, 2011.  Appellants 
filed a timely appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.  On March 16, 2012, 
the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.  Countrywide Home Loans 
Servicing, L.P. v. Nichpor, 6th Dist. No. WD-11-047, 2012-Ohio-1101.  The 
appellate court then certified that its decision was in direct conflict with a well-
reasoned decision by the Second District Court of Appeals, Coates v. Navarro, 2d 
Dist. Nos. 86-CA-11 and 86-CA-18, 1987 WL 8490 (Mar. 27, 1987) on the 
following issue: “Whether a foreclosure action, in which judgment of foreclosure 
has, in fact, been issued, can be dissolved in its entirety prior to confirmation of 
sale, with the filing of a voluntary dismissal, filed by a party in accordance with 
Civ.R. 41(A).”  Id. at ¶ 15-16.  This court accepted the conflict for review on June 
20, 2012, and ordered the parties to brief the certified issue.  132 Ohio St.3d 1421, 
2012-Ohio-2729, 969 N.E.2d 269. 
Analysis 
{¶ 4} The starting point in our analysis is Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a).  It provides 
that “a plaintiff, without order of court, may dismiss all claims asserted by that 
plaintiff against a defendant by doing either of the following: filing a notice of 
dismissal at any time before the commencement of trial.” 
{¶ 5} The key to our analysis is how to apply this rule when a trial is not 
held.  Default judgment is the functional equivalent of a judgment following a 
trial.  Civ.R. 55(B).  A trial is defined as “a judicial examination of the issues, 
whether of law or of fact, in an action or proceeding.”  R.C. 2311.01.  In order to 
enter a default judgment, a court must determine that no issues of law or fact exist 
and that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.  Ohio courts have previously held 
that an order of default judgment means that a trial has commenced for purposes 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
of Civ.R. 41(A) and the matter has proceeded to verdict and final judgment.  See 
Kahler v. Capehart, 3d Dist. No. 13-03-55, 2004-Ohio-2224, ¶ 8.  Additionally, 
in GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 149-150, 
351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), this court stated, “Regardless of whatever else may be 
said of a default judgment, it is a judgment.  It is as good as any other judgment.  
It is a final determination of the rights of the parties. 
{¶ 6} That this default judgment occurred within a foreclosure 
proceeding does not make the judgment any less final.  All that remained in this 
case were administrative matters finalizing the result of the sheriff’s sale and 
giving the mortgagors the opportunity to exercise their equitable right of 
redemption.  These actions can be classified as proceedings to aid in execution of 
the judgment.  In Triple F Invests. v. Pacific Fin. Serv., Inc., 11th Dist. No. 2000-
P-0090, 2001 WL 589343, *3 (June 2, 2001), the Eleventh District stated: 
 
This court has held that a debtor may immediately appeal 
an order of sale and decree of foreclosure because such are final 
and appealable orders.  Ohio Dept. of Taxation v. Plickert (1998), 
128 Ohio App.3d 445, 446 (citing Third Natl. Bank of Circleville 
v. Speakman [1985], 18 Ohio St.3d 119).  Once an order of sale 
and decree of foreclosure is filed, a creditor may file a praecipe for 
an order directing the sheriff to sell the property.  This second 
phase of the proceedings is viewed as a separate and distinct action 
seeking enforcement of an order of sale and decree of foreclosure.  
Ohio Dept. of Taxation at 447.  The appraisal of the foreclosed 
property, the sheriff’s sale, and the confirmation of that sale have 
been described as special proceedings to enforce an order of sale 
and decree of foreclosure.  Citizens Loan & Savings Co. v. Stone 
(1965), 1 Ohio App.2d 551, 552; Shumay v. Lake Chateau, Inc. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
(Apr. 22, 1981), Medina App. Nos. 1013 and 1034, unreported, at 
6. 
 
{¶ 7} To reach the conclusion that the Sixth District Court of Appeals 
did, and to grant a lender the right to dismiss an action after a trial court has 
issued what it has indicated was a final judgment, would lead to the untenable 
result that an unhappy lender could simply wait until after the sheriff’s sale has 
occurred, decide that the sale price was too low, and then dismiss the case in order 
to get a second bite at the apple.  This flies in the face of the general policy that 
judicial sales have a certain degree of finality.  Ohio Sav. Bank v. Ambrose, 56 
Ohio St.3d 53, 55, 563 N.E.2d 1388 (1990). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 8} Based upon the forgoing analysis, we answer the certified-conflict 
question in the negative, and we hold that after a judgment entry grants a decree 
of foreclosure and order of sale, the foreclosure action cannot be dismissed 
pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), because that rule pertains only to the voluntary 
dismissal of a pending case.  This case is reversed, and the matter is remanded for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Manley, Deas & Kochalski, L.L.C., Matthew J. Richardson, Andrew C. 
Clark, and Benjamin Ogg, for appellee. 
 
Heban, Sommer & Murphree, L.L.C., Kevin A. Heban, Gary O. Sommer, 
R. Kent Murphree, and John P. Lewandowski, for appellants. 
________________________