If a judgment in satisfaction of which lands or tenements are sold is reversed on appeal, such reversal shall not defeat or affect the title of the purchaser. In such case restitution in an amount equal to the money for which such lands or tenements were sold, with interest from the day of sale, must be made by the judgment creditor. In ordering restitution, the court shall take into consideration all persons who lost an interest in the property by reason of the judgment and sale and the order of the priority of those interests.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Fannie Mae v. Hicks, 2016 Ohio 8484 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Fannie Mae v. Hicks, 2016 Ohio 8484 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 21ד60(B)(4) motion to vacate a foreclosure sale while requiring that it pay $110,000 in restitution to defendant-appellee Lynda Hicks pursuant to R.C. 2329.45. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the trial court.”
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 1984 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 6ד) They also argue that it disadvantages foreclosing mortgagees because they will see a drop in sales prices or have to pay back the sale price under R.C. 2329.45 in the event of a reversal. We disagree.”
Washington Mut. Bank, FA v. Wallace, 957 N.E.2d 92 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13ד45 states: {¶ 17} “If a judgment in satisfaction of which lands, or tenements are sold, is reversed, such reversal shall not defeat or affect the title of the purchaser.”
Art's Rental Equip., Inc. v. Bear Creek Constr., L.L.C., 2012 Ohio 5371 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5ד45 states: If a judgment in satisfaction of which lands, or tenements are sold, is reversed, such reversal shall not defeat or affect the title of the purchaser.”
Provident Funding Assocs., L.P. v. Turner, 2014 Ohio 2529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5ד{¶5} R.C. 2329.45, which governs the reversal of judgments in foreclosure cases, provides a remedy for appellants in foreclosure cases after the property has been sold, and the proceeds have been distributed.”
Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Murray, 902 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4ד{¶ 27} R.C. 2329.45 provides: “If a judgment in satisfaction of which lands, or tenements are sold, is reversed, such reversal shall not defeat or affect the title of the purchaser.”
Farmers State Bank v. Sponaugle, 2017 Ohio 4322 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2ד03 and R.C. 2329.45 do not apply to party-purchasers in a foreclosure sheriff’s sale).”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Mobile Assocs. Nat'l Network Sys., Inc., 961 N.E.2d 715 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2ד{¶ 15} The Parks argue that R.C. 2329.45 1 is designed to protect purchasers who took the property in good faith and without notice of the possibility that the land was still the subject of an ongoing dispute.”
Fifth Third Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Audia, 2024 Ohio 3374 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4ד{¶15} Audia next argues that the case is not moot because R.C. 2329.45 preserves the remedy of restitution in foreclosure proceedings even after the property has been sold at Sheriff’s sale and the proceeds have been distributed.”
Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Asterino-Starcher, 2018 Ohio 977 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5דThe rationale is that, even though the foreclosure sale is irrevocable under R.C. 2329.45, the trial court can still, in the event of reversal on appeal, fashion a remedy: R.”
Summit Servicing Agency, L.L.C. v. Hunt, 2018 Ohio 2494 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4דIn Tutin, this Court noted that some other district courts had “interpreted R.C. 2329.45 as creating an [additional] exception to the mootness doctrine in foreclosure cases.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.