[Cite as Huntington Natl. Bank v. Patino, 2015-Ohio-4007.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK 

 Appellee 

 v. 

EFRAIN PATINO, AKA EFRAIN H. 

PATINO, et al. 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 14CA0127-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE No. 10CIV1291 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: September 30, 2015 

 

HENSAL, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Efrain Patino appeals an order of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas that 

confirmed a sheriff’s sale and ordered the deed conveyed and the proceeds of the sale distributed. 

For the following reasons, this Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} In July 2010, Huntington National Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure against 

Mr. Patino. In July 2013, the trial court entered a decree of foreclosure. Mr. Patino appealed, 

but this Court upheld the decree. After the property was sold at sheriff’s sale, Huntington moved 

for an order confirming the sale and ordering the deed conveyed and the proceeds of the sale 

distributed. In November 2014, the trial court confirmed the sale and ordered the sheriff to 

convey the property to the purchaser and distribute the proceeds of the sale. Mr. Patino has 

timely appealed the confirmation order. 
2 

 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE RECORD IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING THAT THE TRIAL COURT 

ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY ENTERING THE ORDER 

OF CONFIRMATION AND WRIT OF POSSESSION. 

{¶3} Mr. Patino argues that the trial court incorrectly confirmed the sheriff’s sale. 

Unlike an appeal from the initial foreclosure decree, this Court’s review of a confirmation of sale 

order “is limited to determining whether the sale was conducted as required by [Revised Code] 

2329.01 through R.C. 2329.61.” First Merit Corp. v. Rohde, 9th Dist. Medina No. 05CA0094-

M, 2006-Ohio-4922, ¶ 6. “Whether a judicial sale should be confirmed or set aside is within the 

sound discretion of the trial court.” Id., quoting Ohio Sav. Bank v. Ambrose, 56 Ohio St.3d 53, 

55 (1990). An abuse of discretion implies that a trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable in its judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). This 

Court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the trial court. Rohde at ¶ 6. 

{¶4} Mr. Patino argues that the sale “was improper based upon improper notice, 

advertisement, and execution.” He also argues that the entry confirming the sale was “vague, 

insufficient, and otherwise invalid.” He, therefore, argues that the court abused its discretion 

when it confirmed the sale. 

{¶5} Initially, we note that Mr. Patino did not oppose Huntington’s motion for 

confirmation of sale. Accordingly, he has forfeited all arguments regarding the confirmation 

except for a claim of plain error, which he has not asserted. See Brunke v. Ohio State Home 

Servs., Inc., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010500, 2015-Ohio-2087, ¶ 47. In addition, we note that, 

although Mr. Patino has made general allegations about the inadequacies of the sale and court 

order, he has not specifically explained why they did not satisfy Chapter 2329’s requirements. 
3 

 

We, therefore, conclude that Mr. Patino has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its 

discretion. Mr. Patino’s assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶6} The trial court exercised appropriate discretion when it confirmed the sheriff’s 

sale and ordered the deed conveyed and proceeds distributed. The judgment of the Medina 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JENNIFER HENSAL 

 FOR THE COURT 
4 

 

MOORE, J. 

SCHAFER, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

DAVID N. PATTERSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

JENNIFER MONTY RIEKER, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.