[Cite as U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Lawson, 2023-Ohio-1517.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

 Appellees

v. 

CINDY M. LAWSON, ET AL.

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 29594

Trial Court Case No. 2019 CV 00392

(Civil Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on May 5, 2023

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATTHEW J. RICHARDSON, Attorney for Appellee

 

CINDY M. LAWSON, Pro Se Appellant

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} Cindy M. Lawson appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court 

of Common Pleas, which confirmed the sale of her foreclosed property. For the following 

reasons, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Lawson was the owner of the residential property located at 5746 De Soto 
-2-

Street. To purchase the home, Lawson borrowed $90,824 from Caliber Home Loans, 

Inc. She signed a note in that amount and executed a mortgage to secure payment. 

Caliber subsequently transferred its interest to U.S. Bank National Association.

{¶ 3} Lawson defaulted on her obligations under the note and mortgage. Her 

personal obligation on the loan was discharged in bankruptcy. On January 24, 2019, 

U.S. Bank filed an in rem proceeding, seeking to enforce its security interest. The bank 

asked for foreclosure of the property and a finding of default on the note in the principal 

amount of $85,566.63, plus interest, late charges, advances, costs and expenses.

{¶ 4} Lawson was served with the complaint, but she did not file an answer. On 

July 2, 2019, in response to a show cause order, the bank notified the trial court that it 

was in the process of reviewing a loss mitigation appeal request from Lawson, that the 

subject property was in a FEMA-declared disaster area with an expected moratorium end 

date of September 16, 2019, and that it was unable to proceed until the moratorium was 

lifted. The trial court stayed the proceedings. In late September, U.S. Bank requested 

that the case be reactivated, because the parties “were unable to reach an agreement for 

a foreclosure alternative to resolve the current dispute.” After the trial court again issued 

a show cause order due to failure to prosecute, U.S. Bank indicated that it was reviewing 

a loss mitigation application from Lawson.

{¶ 5} Ultimately, U.S. Bank moved for a default judgment, and on January 22, 

2020, the trial court granted a judgment and decree of foreclosure. The court found that 

the note and mortgage were in default and that the bank was owed a principal amount of 

$85,566.63, plus interest on the principal amount at the rate of 4.375% per annum from 
-3-

May 1, 2018, and late charges and advancements. The court ordered the equity of 

redemption be foreclosed and the property sold. Lawson did not appeal the trial court’s 

judgment. 

{¶ 6} On March 27, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal 

government enacted the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 

which included a moratorium on foreclosures and offered borrowers an opportunity to 

temporarily suspend payment on their federally-backed or federally-owned mortgage 

loans. Where foreclosure proceedings had already been initiated, the CARES Act 

prevented lenders from seeking a foreclosure judgment or requesting a sale of the 

property. The foreclosure moratorium was initially set to expire on May 31, 2020, but it 

was extended several times and ultimately expired on July 31, 2021. It is unclear 

whether the moratorium applied to Lawson’s mortgage loan.

{¶ 7} In April 2020, Lawson moved to stay the sheriff’s sale. The trial court 

granted a stay of the sale through July 1, 2020. At that point, a sheriff’s sale was 

scheduled for July 28, 2020. The July 2020 sale was cancelled, and no further action 

was taken in the case until August 2021, more than a year later.

{¶ 8} On August 4, 2021, Lawson again sought a stay of the sale of her home, 

citing ongoing medical issues and the COVID-19 pandemic. After the trial court denied 

the motion, Lawson sought relief from the foreclosure judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). That 

motion also was denied. Lawson did not appeal.

{¶ 9} The property was sold in a foreclosure auction in June 2022 for $131,300. 

Lawson filed a motion to stay confirmation of the sheriff’s sale, arguing that she was 
-4-

pursuing loss mitigation and mortgage assistance with U.S. Bank and that the bank told 

her that it would halt the sale while she pursued those processes. The trial court 

overruled the motion. On August 22, 2022, the trial court confirmed the sale and ordered 

distribution of the proceeds.

{¶ 10} Lawson appeals from the trial court’s judgment.

II. Confirmation of Sale

{¶ 11} Lawson, proceeding pro se, does not provide any assignments of error as 

required by App.R. 16(A), but she challenges the foreclosure of the De Soto property and 

its sale. She argues that the trial court failed to protect her civil liberties, civil rights, and 

due process rights, and overreached when denying her motions. Lawson states that she 

was granted rights for “loan modification consideration due to unemployment, living in a 

disaster area in May 2019 (tornados), and a moratorium imposed by the government 

related to a global pandemic.” She also asserts that U.S. Bank engaged in bad faith 

negotiations and fraudulent conduct during the foreclosure and sale processes.

{¶ 12} In reply, U.S. Bank argues that Lawson’s arguments do not relate to the 

confirmation of sale. It points out that any requested discovery would have occurred 

after the trial court entered its judgment and decree of foreclosure, and the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying her motions when more than two years elapsed 

between the foreclosure judgment and the sale of the property.

{¶ 13} Before turning to the issues Lawson raises, we begin with a brief 

explanation of the two-step foreclosure process.

{¶ 14} The foreclosure process begins with a suit for foreclosure of the mortgage. 
-5-

This action “constitutes a proceeding for the legal determination of the existence of a 

mortgage lien, the ascertainment of its extent, and the subjection to sale of the property 

pledged for its satisfaction, and no more.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Young, 2d Dist. 

Darke No. 2009-CA-12, 2011-Ohio-122, ¶ 28, quoting Carr v. Home Owners Loan Corp., 

148 Ohio St. 533, 540, 76 N.E.2d 389 (1947). The final judgment in a foreclosure 

proceeding “will determine the rights of all the parties in the premises sought to be 

foreclosed upon.” Marion Prod. Credit Assn. v. Cochran, 40 Ohio St.3d 265, 270, 533 

N.E.2d 325 (1988); U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Conrad, 2018-Ohio-994, 108 N.E.3d 1156, 

¶ 15 (2d Dist.). Upon the entry of a judgment of foreclosure, the trial court must order 

the property to be sold. Conrad at ¶ 15, citing R.C. 2323.07. A judgment and decree of 

foreclosure is a final appealable order. Id. at ¶ 14.

{¶ 15} The second part of the process involves the sale of the property, culminating 

in a confirmation of sale and dispersal of the sale proceeds. Conrad at ¶ 14. “The 

primary purpose and goal of a foreclosure sale is to protect the interests of the mortgagordebtor while, at the same time, ensuring that the secured creditors receive payment for 

unpaid debts.” Young at ¶ 30. Prior to confirming the sale of the property, the trial court 

must determine that the sale of property was made, in all respects, in conformity with 

statutory requirements. R.C. 2329.31; see CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 139 Ohio 

St.3d 299, 2014-Ohio-1984, 11 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 40 (“The confirmation process is an 

ancillary one in which the issues present are limited to whether the sale proceedings 

conformed to law.”). The court may stay confirmation of the sale “to permit a property 

owner time to redeem the property or for any other reason that it determines is 
-6-

appropriate.” R.C. 2329.31(A). An order confirming the sale of foreclosed property is 

also a final appealable order. E.g., Conrad at ¶ 14.

{¶ 16} Generally, we review a trial court’s decision to confirm a judicial sale for an

abuse of discretion. Sutton Funding LLC. v. Herres, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26530, 

2015-Ohio-3609, ¶ 17. An abuse of discretion implies that the court’s attitude was 

unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 

219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶ 17} We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to confirm the 

sale. The sale of the property occurred well after the foreclosure moratorium expired, 

and Lawson has not identified any errors in the sale procedures. Lawson asserted in 

her July 2022 motion to stay confirmation of the sale that she was pursuing mortgage 

assistance and loss mitigation, but that had been occurring throughout the pendency of 

the case. Indeed, U.S. Bank notified the trial court in March 2019 that the parties had 

recently entered into a loss mitigation agreement. We find nothing in the record that 

required the trial court to stay the confirmation of the June 2022 sale, and the court did 

not abuse its discretion in failing to do so. The record does not support Lawson’s claims 

that the trial court failed to protect her civil liberties and civil rights and violated her right 

to due process during the sale process. In addition, any issues related to the judgment 

and decree of foreclosure or the trial court’s denial of Lawson’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion are 

not properly before us, as they should have been raised in separate appeals from those 

judgments.

III. Conclusion
-7-

{¶ 18} The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM, P.J. and LEWIS, J., concur.