[Cite as Ohio Receivers Group v. Damene, 2023-Ohio-4620.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

OHIO RECEIVERS GROUP,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

ZUFAN DAMENE,

 Defendant-Appellant,

 and

UNKNOWN TENANTS, et al.,

 Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-230091

TRIAL NO. A-1705952

 O P I N I O N.

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 20, 2023

Strauss Troy Co., LPA, and Philomena S. Ashdown, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

H. Leon Hewitt, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

CROUSE, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} This appeal concerns the court-ordered sale of property owned by 

defendant-appellant Zufan Damene. Plaintiff-appellee Ohio Receivers Group (“ORG”) 

filed a complaint under R.C. 3767.41 to have Damene’s property declared a public 

nuisance. Eventually, the court appointed ORG as receiver for the property to abate 

the nuisance, and when ORG’s efforts were thwarted, the court approved ORG’s 

motion to sell the property. Damene appeals from the trial court’s order approving the 

receiver’s final report, granting the receiver’s fees, and authorizing the receiver to sell 

Damene’s property. However, because the trial court has since confirmed the sale of 

the property, we must dismiss this appeal as moot.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} Damene’s property at 2914 Seminole Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, (the 

“property”) came to the attention of city building inspectors in 2012, who issued repair 

orders to correct problems identified on the property, “such as the need to repair 

gutters and downspouts, soffit, masonry walls, and siding.” Little work was done to 

repair the property, and the city reissued repair orders in 2015. The city inspectors 

noted that little progress had been made leading up to October 2017, when the building 

was totally engulfed in a fire. The fire caused significant structural damage, including 

a partial collapse of the first floor of the building. As a result of the fire, the building 

was condemned by the city. When Damene failed to comply with orders to barricade 

the building for safety reasons until repairs were made, the city installed barricades 

and issued civil fines. The barricades were later removed, despite no work having been 

performed to remediate the safety concerns, and city inspectors found squatters on 

the site.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

{¶3} In November 2017, ORG filed a complaint under R.C. 3767.41 to have 

the property declared a public nuisance due to Damene’s failure to maintain the 

property and remediate the hazardous conditions identified by the city building 

inspectors. Pursuant to the public-nuisance statute, ORG requested that the court 

order Damene to abate the nuisance condition, and if she failed to do so, to appoint a 

receiver to abate the nuisance condition. The complaint also named as defendants the 

city of Cincinnati and the Hamilton County Treasurer and Auditor (the “municipal 

defendants”), so that the city and county could protect their rights to tax and other 

assessments against the property.1

{¶4} Damene answered the complaint pro se and requested additional time 

to secure counsel and to bring the property up to code. 

{¶5} In October 2018, ORG filed a motion for summary judgment requesting 

that the court find the property to be a public nuisance, as defined in R.C. 3767.41, and 

that the court appoint ORG as receiver to abate the nuisance. ORG supported its 

motion with an affidavit from the manager of the city’s Property Maintenance Code 

Enforcement (“PMCE”) Division, attesting to the enforcement history of the property 

and describing the nuisance conditions on the property. The city filed a response in 

support of ORG’s motion, supported by the affidavit of the PMCE inspector 

responsible for the area where the property is located. In November 2018, the trial 

court granted ORG’s unopposed motion.

{¶6} In June 2020, ORG filed a motion requesting that the court authorize it 

to solicit bids for either abatement of the nuisance conditions or demolition of the 

property. In its motion, ORG alleged that it had paid the property taxes not previously 

1 None of the municipal defendants are parties to this appeal.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

paid by Damene and that Damene had been interfering with attempts to conduct 

repairs on the property by intimidating workers, changing locks, and removing posted 

notices. The motion also contained estimates of costs expected to be incurred, as well 

as the proposed Request for Proposals (“RFP”) that it intended to publicize. The trial 

court granted the unopposed motion in July 2020.

{¶7} In November 2022, ORG filed a motion requesting that the court 

approve its final report, approve its fees and expenses as a first-priority lien on the 

property, and authorize it to sell the property free and clear of all liens and claims in 

lieu of abatement. ORG provided an itemized list of its expenses and a purchase 

contract for the property, signed by the proposed buyer, contingent on court approval. 

In addition to serving the motion on defendants as required, ORG published notice of 

its motion in the Cincinnati Court Index. Following a hearing attended only by ORG, 

the trial court granted ORG’s unopposed motion and approved the sale on February 

2, 2023.

{¶8} On March 2, 2023, Damene filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order 

authorizing the sale. Damene did not request any stay of execution in the trial court or 

this court.

{¶9} In May 2023, ORG filed a motion in the trial court requesting 

confirmation of its sale of the property.

{¶10} We ordered jurisdictional briefing sua sponte on mootness in July 2023. 

Following briefing of the parties, on August 11, 2023, the court provisionally 

acknowledged jurisdiction on the basis that the sale had not yet been confirmed or the 

proceeds distributed. However, on August 14, the trial court entered its order 

confirming the sale and discharging ORG as receiver.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

II. Analysis

{¶11} Damene raises two issues on appeal, which although not identified as 

such in the brief, we interpret as assignments of error. First, Damene argues that the 

taking of her property is unconstitutional. Second, Damene argues that the receiver 

had a conflict of interest in selling the property to the buyer. However, before we can 

address either of Damene’s arguments, we must determine whether the case has 

become moot following the trial court’s confirmation of the sale.

{¶12} This court’s duty “is to decide controversies between parties that can be 

carried into effect, and we need not render an advisory opinion on a moot question or 

question of law that cannot affect the issues in the case.” Cincinnati v. Twang, LLC, 

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200369, 2021-Ohio-4387, ¶ 27.

{¶13} We have not found any existing case law on when an appeal of the courtordered sale of nuisance property under R.C. 3767.41 has become moot. Consequently, 

we look to the nearest analogous jurisprudence, which pertains to court-ordered sales 

under R.C. Chapter 2329. That chapter applies, inter alia, to foreclosure sales.

{¶14} “In foreclosure cases, as in all other civil actions, after the matter has 

been extinguished through satisfaction of the judgment, the individual subject matter 

of the case is no longer under the control of the court and the court cannot afford relief 

to the parties to the action.” Bankers Trust Co. of California, N.A. v. Tutin, 9th Dist. 

Summit No. 24329, 2009-Ohio-1333, ¶ 16, quoted in Art’s Rental Equip., Inc. v. Bear 

Creek Constr., L.L.C., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110544, C-110555, C-110558, C110559, C-110564, C-110785, C-110792, C-110797, C-110798, C-110799, C-110800, C110801, C-110808, and C-120309, 2012-Ohio-5371, ¶ 9.

{¶15} “Satisfaction of a judgment renders an appeal from that judgment 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

moot.” Art’s Rental Equip. at ¶ 7. Where the appellant has failed to request a stay 

pending appeal in the trial court, the nonappealing party may continue its efforts to 

have its judgment satisfied, even where an appeal is pending. Id. at ¶ 8. Where the 

party has not requested a stay of the judgment, the party has voluntarily satisfied the 

judgment. Id. If the judgment is satisfied before the appeal is decided, the appeal has 

become moot. Id.

{¶16} In foreclosure cases, the judgment is satisfied, rendering the appeal 

moot, when the property has been sold, the trial court has confirmed the sale, and the 

proceeds have been distributed. Art’s Rental Equip. at ¶ 13.

{¶17} In this case, the property has been sold and the trial court has confirmed 

the sale. The trial court’s orders do not reflect whether the proceeds have been 

distributed. However, we believe that the differences between the procedures for 

selling nuisance property under R.C. 3767.41 and sheriff’s sales of foreclosure 

properties under R.C. Chapter 2329 may explain this omission. In a foreclosure case, 

the property is sold by an officer of the court, R.C. 2329.151(A), and the purchaser pays 

to that officer the balance due on the purchase only after the court confirms the sale. 

R.C. 2329.31(B). However, under R.C. 3767.41, the receiver is given authorization by 

the court to sell the property, under terms set by the judge, and the receiver collects 

and distributes the proceeds of the sale according to the statute. R.C. 3767.41(I). The 

court does not control the proceeds, except through its orders to the receiver.

III. Conclusion

{¶18} Because the sale has been confirmed, and Damene never requested a 

stay of execution, the court’s judgment has been satisfied. Consequently, this appeal 

has become moot and must be dismissed.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

Appeal dismissed.

WINKLER and BOCK, JJ., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.