Avco Financial Services Loan, Inc. v. Hale, 86AP-727

Decision Date26 February 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86AP-727,86AP-727
Citation36 Ohio App.3d 65,520 N.E.2d 1378
PartiesAVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES LOAN, INC., Appellant, v. HALE, et al., Appellees.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. The standard to apply for a dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, is whether the plaintiff has alleged any cause of action cognizable by the forum.

2. In a mortgage foreclosure action all persons acquiring an interest in the property after service and during the pendency of the suit are bound by the decree and the sale thereunder. In addition, while the foreclosure action is pending, no other action may be commenced concerning the property.

James J. Marlin, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.

Abroms & Weisz and Michael J. Weisz, Columbus, for appellees Raymond and Donna Hale.

Bricker & Eckler and James A. Readey, Columbus, for appellee Rickenbacker Port Authority.

Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss and Rick D. DeBlasis, Cincinnati, for appellee Mfrs. Hanover Mortg. Corp.

McCORMAC, Judge.

On September 20, 1984, Manufacturers Hanover Mortgage Corporation ("Hanover") filed a complaint in foreclosure against Raymond and Donna Hale, Avco Financial Services Loan, Inc. ("Avco"), and BancOhio National Bank. Hanover was the first mortgage holder of a home owned by the Hales, and Avco was the second mortgage holder. On December 7, 1984, the court entered a judgment and decree in foreclosure. The property was to be sold and the proceeds disbursed in the following order of priority:

"1. To the Clerk of this Court, the costs of this action, including the fees of appraisers.

"2. To the Treasurer of Franklin County, the taxes and assessments, due and payable as of the date of Sheriff's Sale, and legally assessed against the real estate.

"3. To the plaintiff, MANUFACTURERS HANOVER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, the sum of $41,717.13, together with interest thereon at the rate of 9 percent per annum from November 5, 1984, together with such other advances as plaintiff shall hereafter make for taxes, insurance, or otherwise to protect said property.

"4. To the defendant, AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES LOAN, INC., the sum of $26,466.97, together with interest thereon at the rate of 21 percent per annum from October 1, 1984.

"5. To the defendant, BANCOHIO NATIONAL BANK, the sum of $466.73, together with interest thereon and costs.

"6. The balance of the sale proceeds, if any, shall be paid by the Sheriff to the Clerk of this Court to await further orders of this Court."

On February 11, 1985, Rickenbacker Port Authority ("RPA") executed an "Agreement for Preparation of a Noise Reduction Plan with the Village of Groveport." The agreement required RPA to implement various procedures and studies concerning the noise level in homes surrounding the Rickenbacker Airport. The agreement provided that, if the measures to reduce the interior noise level were unsuccessful, the RPA would purchase the homes qualifying under Section IX. Apparently, the Hales' property was located in this area.

Subsequently, on May 22, 1986, Avco brought the current suit against the Hales, RPA, and Hanover. In the complaint, Avco admitted that the realty for which it holds a second mortgage is in foreclosure by Hanover, as previously noted. The complaint then alleged that RPA has defaulted on its duties under the aforementioned agreement, by failing to either purchase the Hales' property or take steps to complete that purchase. Also, Avco alleged that the property has been seriously devalued, and its security interest affected by RPA's actions. Avco further alleged that it is a third-party beneficiary of the Hales. Judgment was demanded against RPA for:

"1) Judgment for $30,000 together with interest and all costs herein.

"2) For an order finding and declaring Defendant Rickenbacker Port Authority must proceed with the procedure to purchase the Hale property.

"3) For an order finding and declaring that Defendant Rickenbacker Port Authority must apply any benefits under Exhibit B [the agreement] to any owner or security holder on the subject realty rather than only to those from March 1986, landing date."

On June 26, 1986, RPA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1). On June 30, 1986, Hanover filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). On July 23, 1986, the trial court granted both defendants' motions to dismiss.

Avco has appealed to this court, raising the following assignments...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 cases
  • Everhart v. Merrick Mfg. II LLC
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 22 d4 Dezembro d4 2022
    ...complaint." State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock , 42 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 537 N.E.2d 641 (1989), citing Avco Fin. Servs. Loan, Inc. v. Hale , 36 Ohio App.3d 65, 67, 520 N.E.2d 1378 (10th Dist.1987). Under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), a court may "consider outside matter attached to a motion to dismiss for lac......
  • Ford v. Tandy Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 16 d2 Fevereiro d2 1993
    ...to decide. McHenry v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 56, 62, 587 N.E.2d 414, 418; see, also, Avco Financial Serv. Loan, Inc. v. Hale (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 65, 520 N.E.2d 1378. This is generally a question of law which we review independently of the trial court's decision. In determini......
  • Harrison v. Bishop
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 18 d5 Dezembro d5 2015
    ...complaint.” State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock, 42 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 537 N.E.2d 641 (1989), citing Avco Fin. Servs. Loan, Inc. v. Hale, 36 Ohio App.3d, 65, 67, 520 N.E.2d 1378 (10th Dist.1987). Appellate courts review a decision to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) de novo, employing the same stan......
  • Cook v. Pitter Patter Learning Ctr.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 25 d5 Março d5 2022
    ...complaint." State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock, 42 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 537 N.E.2d 641 (1989), citing Avco Fin. Servs. Loan, Inc. v. Hale, 36 Ohio App.3d 65, 67, 520 N.E.2d 1378 (10th Dist.1987). "In determining whether a plaintiff has alleged a cause of action sufficient to withstand a Civ.R. 12......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT