[Cite as JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA v. Pellin, 2012-Ohio-1151.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ) CASE NO. 10 MA 179 ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ) ) VS. ) OPINION ) VANESSA PELLIN, et al. ) ) DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ) CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio Case No. 06 CV 300 JUDGMENT: Reversed.

JUDGES: Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Dated: March 16, 2012 [Cite as JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA v. Pellin, 2012-Ohio-1151.] APPEARANCES: For J.P.Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Atty. Thomas R. Merry Atty. James H. Cannon Barren & Merry 110 Polaris Parkway, Suite 302 Westerville, Ohio 43082 For American Tax Funding: Atty. John N. Zomoida, Jr. Anthony & Zomoida, LLC Town One Square 40 S. Main Street Poland, Ohio 44514 For State of Ohio, Dept. of Taxation: Atty. Michael DeWine Attorney General of Ohio Atty. Amy Kaufman Assistant Ohio Attorney General Collections Enforcement Section 150 E. Gay Street, 21st Floor Cleveland, Ohio 43215 For Vanessa Pellin, Pellin Emergency Serv., Atty. Howard E. Mentzer Inc. and R and V Leasing Corp.: Mentzer and Mygrant, Ltd ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶3} The trial court erred by denying American Tax

Funding, LLC’s Motion to Intervene.

{¶4} We note at the outset that a denial of a motion to intervene is a final appealable order. Likover v. Cleveland, 60 Ohio App.2d 154, 155, 396 N.E.2d 491 (1978); Fairview Gen. Hosp. v. Fletcher, 69 Ohio App.3d 827, 591 N.E.2d 1312 (1990).

{¶5} Civ.R. 24 governs the circumstances and procedure for a person to intervene in a civil action. A party may intervene as a matter of right if it has “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action”. Civ.R. 24(A)(2). The rule is to be liberally construed in favor of intervention. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 534, 696 N.E.2d 1079 (1998). Requests to intervene are reviewed under Civ.R. 24 for abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Cardinal Joint Fire Dist. v. Canfield Twp., 7th Dist. No. 03 MA 67, 2004- Ohio-5526, ¶29. In order to find an abuse of discretion, the appellate court must determine that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶6} A lienholder generally has a right to intervene in a foreclosure action. Rokakis v. Martin, 180 Ohio App.3d 696, 2009-Ohio-369, 906 N.E.2d 1200 (8th Dist.); McKesson Medical-Surgical Minnesota, Inc. v. Medico Med. Equip. & Supplies, 8th Dist. No. 84912, 2005-Ohio-2325; Sharp v. Kuhn, 12th Dist. No. 78 CA 10, 1978 WL 216347 (Oct. 4, 1978). In this particular case, Appellant became a lienholder by purchasing delinquent tax certificates. A county treasurer is permitted to sell delinquent tax certificates under the rules set forth in R.C. 5721.30 to 5721.43. Almost anyone, except for the landowner owing the delinquent tax, may purchase the tax certificates. R.C. 5721.32(J); 5721.33(E)(3). The sale of the tax certificate also transfers a tax lien: “the superior lien of the state and its taxing districts for those taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest is conveyed intact to the certificate holder.” 87 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Taxation, Section 700, at 172 (2000); see also R.C 5721.35(A). Thus, an owner of delinquent tax certificates, as the superior lienholder, has a right to intervene in a foreclosure action. Because Appellant could intervene as a matter of right in the foreclosure action, it was an abuse of discretion to overrule the motion to intervene. There are no arguments on appeal opposing Appellant’s assignment of error and the record establishes the validity of the argument. Therefore, the assignment of error is sustained and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Donofrio, J., concurs. Vukovich, J., concurs.