By Larry R Rothenberg, Esq.
Ohio foreclosure procedures are covered by the pertinent state statutes and the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, individual courts often adopt local rules, which must be followed in cases filed in the particular county. Furthermore, individual judges generally have discretion in the administration of their cases, and some impose standing orders that apply to all cases in their courtrooms. Judge Nancy Margaret Russo of the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas has such a standing order for foreclosures.
Mortgage servicers should take particular note, as Judge Russo’s standing order contains some unique requirements that are not found elsewhere. For example, within 20 days of filing the Complaint, the plaintiff’s attorney must file a Property Status Report on a form prescribed by the Court, and include the submission of a photograph of the subject property taken within 10 days of filing the complaint. The failure to do so may be grounds for dismissal.
In an apparent effort to prevent bank walkaways, the order further requires that once a judgment for foreclosure is granted in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must file within 30 days thereafter, all necessary documents to cause a Sheriff’s sale to be scheduled, or be subject to a possible finding of contempt of court. Any request to withdraw an Order of Sale must be filed at least seven days prior to the date of the sale (even though this provision can frustrate last-minute loss mitigation negotiations).
The standing order mandates that in the event the parties enter into a forbearance agreement, loan modification, payment plan or other similar arrangement, a copy of the agreement must be filed with the court. An updated version of the standing order now requires that within three days of the date of the agreement, a copy of the agreement must be filed with the court. The failure to do so may also result in a possible finding of contempt of court.
We will advise when a case we have filed has been assigned to Judge Nancy Margaret Russo, so that you can flag your file accordingly. In the event of a forbearance agreement, loan modification, payment plan, or any other similar settlement in one of Judge Russo’s cases, you should provide us with a copy of the signed agreement immediately, so that we can file it with the court prior to the three-day deadline.
For a complete copy of Judge Nancy Margaret Russo’s Standing Order for foreclosure cases, go here: http://www.realestatedefaultgroup.com/uploads/Client%20Advisory-%20LRR%20Judge%20Russo%20Standing%20Order-%20order.pdf
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Larry R. Rothenberg, Esq. Larry is the partner in charge of WWR’s Real Estate Default Group in the Cleveland office who focuses on complex foreclosures, evictions and title insurance issues. He is the author of the Ohio Jurisdictional Section within the treatise, “The Law of Distressed Real Estate”, and was a contributing author to “Ohio Foreclosures, What You Need To Know Now”, published by The West Group. He can be reached at 216.685.1135 or email@example.com.
Filed under: OCUS, Ohio, pictures | Tags: ohio credit union league, pictures, zenith
The upbeat mood of the attendees and sponsors of this year’s OCUL Zenith Convention inspired me. Last year, who could blame anyone for being negative. Good news did not abound. This year, however, hope seemed to bloom along with the trees in the beautiful spring weather. The economy seems to be on a slow upswing and credit union people are more optimistic than ever!
We were at the Cincinnati Convention Center.
This year, I gave two compliance sessions and we exhibited as well. Of course, just like in year’s past, I took some pictures of people who visited our booth.
Kim and Tammy from Credit Union of Ohio.
Jill from the league is all smiles.
Miranda from Port Conneaut Credit Union.
Robin from Taleris Credit Union and Dawn Pagon’s husband, Ron.
Jennifer and Kay from Sun Federal Credit Union.
The WWR team: Lauren Halton, John Porter, Dawn Pagon and Matt Young.
Believe it or not, this is the 4th Ohio Credit Union League convention I’ve covered here on TCUB. I started this blog in February of 2007. I hope the photography is getting a little better at least!
In the spirit of crowd-sourcing and the social media community, I have something that you can help me with if you wish. Years ago, I wrote a Q and A piece for the Ohio Bar Association called: Member-Owned Credit Unions Offer Banking Alternatives. Visit the link to read the full article. It was last updated in 2008 and the OBA has asked me to update it again. The Ohio Credit Union League helped me with it when it was first published and I will ask for their input again. However, if you have any suggestions, dear readers, please leave a comment below and I will make every effort to integrate those comments into the revised version. When I told the OBA rep that credit unions are getting a lot of press right now from luminaries such as Suze Orman, she thought they the article could be re-released through their local news outlets throughout the State of Ohio. I think that you would agree that anything that spreads the word about credit unions is a good thing!
Filed under: credit unions, mortgages, Ohio | Tags: affirmative defense, foreclosure, mortgages, Notice of Default, Ohio
by Larry R. Rothenberg
Many states have statutes requiring the service of a notice of default prior to commencing a mortgage foreclosure. Although Ohio does not have such a statutory requirement, the lender must, nevertheless, fulfill such a condition precedent if it is required by its loan documents. A failure to do so will leave the lender vulnerable to an affirmative defense being raised in that regard in the foreclosure case.
The “Ohio, Single-Family, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac” uniform mortgage deed form (hereinafter the “Form”) imposes such an obligation on the lender prior to acceleration of the debt and foreclosure of the mortgage. This advisory will discuss how to ensure compliance with the Form’s condition precedent.
Who Must Be Served With The Notice?
The Form expressly states, “Lender shall give notice to Borrower.” This implies that all borrowers, who have not previously been released, are entitled to notice of the default prior to acceleration and foreclosure.
What if the mortgage was voluntarily given by the owner of the real property, to secure a loan given by the lender to another person? The provision of the Form only requires that notice be given to the “borrower” and does not require that a notice be given to a non-borrower mortgagor. However, many judges today are taking a more adversarial posture against lenders, and will not process foreclosures easily where the lender has not thoroughly pursued loss mitigation efforts. Therefore, we recommend that in addition to the borrower, any non-borrower mortgagors be served as well with the pre-acceleration notice in order to notify them that although they are not personally liable for the debt, a foreclosure may be filed if the default is not cured.
What Must Be Included In The Notice?
The Form requires that the notice specify (a) the default; (b) the amount required to cure the default; (c) a date not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to the borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by the security instrument, foreclosure by judicial proceeding, and sale of the property. The Form further requires that the notice inform the borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and to assert the non-existence of a default in the foreclosure proceeding, or any other defense of borrower to acceleration and foreclosure.
Lenders should review the content of their notices to ensure that they strictly comply with these requirements. Even a minor deviation may give rise to a valid defense in some judges’ minds.
When Must The Notice Be Provided?
As indicated above, the Form requires that the notice give a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to the borrower, by which the default must be cured. Section 15 of the Form states: “Any notice to Borrower in connection with this Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower’s notice address if sent by other means.”
Hence, if the notice is being sent by first class mail and it provides a 30-day period from the date of the notice to cure the default, the lender must make sure that it is actually mailed, i.e. deposited in a post office mail box or delivered to the post office, on the date that the letter is dated. In the event that an issue is raised in the foreclosure case regarding when the letter was mailed, it may be necessary for the lender to prove that fact with documentary evidence.
If the notice is being delivered by means other than first class mail, for example, by certified mail or hand delivery, the Form provides that the 30-day period prior to acceleration begins to run upon actual delivery. Therefore, if lenders are having the notice delivered by means other than first class mail, they must ensure that it is actually delivered not less than 30 days prior to the deadline stated in the letter, to cure the default.
Where Must The Notice Be Delivered?
The Form states that the address to which to deliver the notice shall be the property address unless the borrower designated a substitute notice address by notification to the lender. Therefore, the lender should deliver the notice to the property address, unless the borrower provided a different mailing address either when the loan was initiated, or in a subsequent notification to the lender of a change of the borrower’s address. The Form places the responsibility on the borrower to promptly notify the lender of a change of the borrower’s address. If the lender specifies a procedure for the borrower to provide a change of address, then the borrower must use that method to report a change.
The Form expressly states that there may be only one designated notice address at any one time. However, even though not required by the Form, it is recommended that the lender serve the notice at multiple addresses if it may be reasonably expected to reach the borrower at one address or another, in order to avoid a defense being raised before a pro-debtor judge.
How Must The Notice Be Delivered?
The Form does not require that the notice be delivered by any particular method. As mentioned above, if the notice is delivered by first class mail, it is deemed delivered when it is sent. However, first class mail is not the exclusive method of delivery. Many lenders use certified mail or personal delivery, although the item is not deemed delivered using those methods, unless and until it is actually delivered.
This issue was illustrated in the 10th Appellate District of Ohio’s recently decided case of Natl. City Mtge. Co. v. Richards, 2009-Ohio-25556. The lender prepared a proper notice and timely sent it by certified mail, which was returned as unclaimed. When the lender’s attorney subsequently filed a foreclosure action and then a motion for summary judgment, the borrower argued that the notice was ineffective because it had not been delivered. The Court of Appeals agreed with the borrower’s argument, stating that certified mail is not the same as first class mail, and therefore, although the mortgage provides that delivery of first class mail is presumed upon mailing, the mortgage does not provide such a presumption for certified mail. Hence, according to the Court, because the certified mail notice was returned unclaimed, it is not deemed to have been delivered, and therefore, the notice failed to fulfill the requirement contained in the mortgage, for a pre-acceleration notice of default. Consequently, the Court of Appeals ordered the foreclosure case dismissed. Lenders who are sending the notice by certified mail or hand delivery can easily avoid this problem by sending it via ordinary first class mail also. For a complete copy of the case, go here.
Lenders can save themselves much aggravation, duplicate court costs, and delays, by reviewing and strictly complying with the default provisions contained in their note and mortgage, before referring it to counsel for foreclosure. If the mortgage requires a pre-acceleration notice, the lender should indicate whether the lender delivered the notice in the referral package to foreclosure counsel, and if so, provide a copy of the notice and evidence or an indication as to how, on whom, and when it was delivered.
If you have any questions on this information, please contact Mr. Larry R. Rothenberg, Esq. Larry is the partner-in-charge of the Cleveland real estate and foreclosure department of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. He is the author of the Ohio Jurisdictional Section contained within the treatise, “The Law of Distressed Real Estate”, published by The West Group. The firm handles foreclosures and related litigation throughout Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Larry can be reached at (216) 685-1135 or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Client Advisory is published by Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A . For over 75 years, we have been providing comprehensive creditor representation and legal services to clients. Our approach integrates the filing of legal action with our recovery activity anywhere a debtor or debtor’s assets may be located. We coordinate the handling of files personally throughout our footprint states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, or through our national attorney network. When it comes to creditor representation at WWR, we get it.
We exhibited at the OCUL Zenith Convention in Cleveland last Thursday and Friday. Here’s a picture of Dawn and Lauren at the booth.
The OCUL always runs a very professional show. Despite the economy, this year was no exception. The exhibit hall had great traffic the entire time and the special events were well attended.
A good credit union convention requires an enormous amount of time and the efforts of a lot of people to make happen. The OCUL should be commended for setting an example to follow for leagues across the country.
And I didn’t have to wear a costume for this one…
By: Doreen M. Abdullovski, Esq.
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 5703.47 , the Ohio Tax Commissioner is required annually to determine the interest rate that will be awarded on judgments in Ohio courts, absent a different rate in the contract between the parties. The rate is based on a formula utilizing certain Federal short-term interest rates. Currently the 2008 calendar year interest rate is eight percent (8%) per annum. The Tax Commissioner has determined that the interest rate for the calendar year 2009 will be five percent (5%) per annum. Any section of the Revised Code requiring interest to be computed at the statutory rate per annum beginning January 1, 2009 will use the new 5%.
The 2009 five percent (5%) rate is a significant decrease and is the lowest it has dropped since 2005. Historically, the interest rate has steadily increased or remained the same since 2005.
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 1343.03(A), the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate per annum determined pursuant to section 5703.47 of the Revised Code which for 2009 will be 5%, unless a written contract provides a different rate. In this case the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate provided in the contract.
The applicable rate is the rate in effect at the time the judgment is rendered. This means any judgments obtained in the year 2008 where the statutory rate is applicable will be calculated at the 2008 interest rate of 8%, and any judgments obtained in 2009 will be calculated at 5%. Once judgment is obtained in a given year the interest rate calculated is not subject to a yearly review or modification.
It is uncertain as to when a court may actually render judgment in a case. In order to not ask for a higher rate than what will be in effect when the judgment is ultimately rendered and to avoid any Fair Debt Collection Practices Act issue of asking for more than is legally owed, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. requests for the principal balance, accrued interest, “plus interest thereafter on the balance due at the rate of interest per Ohio Revised Code 1343.03” in its complaint.
Because of what generally is a huge difference between the rate of interest provided in the contract and the statutory rate, we cannot stress enough the importance of providing documentation (the agreement and/or contract and statements) to support the account balances and the agreed interest rate between the parties to the debt. This allows us to pursue the maximum recovery for our clients. The higher rate is applicable from the time of default as well as on the judgment itself. When there is no contract rate and the client will have to accept the statutory rate, we apply the statutory interest rate to the ongoing account balances from default through the date of judgment. It then remains in effect until the judgment, decree or order is satisfied. ORC 1343.03(B)
The 2009 five percent (5%) statutory interest rate will amount to recovery of lower balances where we do not have the documentation to support a higher interest rate. Notwithstanding these realities, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. continues to strive to protect your interests and looks forward to our continued representation in this recovery process.
Have a happy and health holiday season!
If you have any questions on this information, please contact Ms. Doreen M. Abdullovski, Esq.
Doreen M. Abdullovski is an associate in the Compliance department of the Brooklyn Heights operations center of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. She can be reached at (216) 739-5646 or via email at email@example.com.
Client Advisory is published by Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. , an organization providing comprehensive creditor representation. The information contained in this advisory is a summary of legal information and is not intended to constitute legal advice on specific matters or create an attorney-client relationship. Contact any of our offices or visit our website at www.weltman.com for more real estate related information, company facts and attorney profiles. ©2008
The following is an article reprinted with permission from the upcoming Summer 2008 edition of The WWR Letter:
Significant Changes to Garnishment Proceedings in Ohio- Senate Bill 281 Becomes Law on September 30, 2008
By: Joe DeGiorgio, Esquire
On June 27, 2008, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed Ohio Senate Bill 281 (“SB 281”), which will become law in Ohio on September 30, 2008. SB 281 amends a total of seven sections of the Ohio Revised Code, but the primary effect of the new law is to amend those sections of the Revised Code that govern what property is subject to – and exempt from – garnishment by creditors. SB 281, therefore, is particularly relevant to (and will have far-reaching effects on) all debt collection activity throughout the state.
SB 281’s most important provisions relate to two distinct areas of Ohio garnishment procedure; it amends both the dollar amounts of property that may be held exempt, and it amends the procedure whereby creditors may garnish individuals’ property. This article discusses some of the more remarkable provisions of the bill.
Probably most notably, SB 281 amends § 2329.66 of the Revised Code to increase the dollar amounts of various categories of property, both real and personal, that any debtor (domiciled in Ohio) may hold exempt from execution and garnishment. While SB 281 does not create new exemptions – current law allows debtors to hold certain property exempt – the new law does significantly increase the dollar amounts of nearly all the already-existing exemptions. Some of the most significant changes to those amounts are as follows:
Property, used as residence: $5,000 (under current law), $20,200 (under SB 281)
Motor Vehicle (one): $1,000 (under current law), $3,225 (under SB 281)
Money received (or any right to receive money) in the past 12 months as payment for personal bodily injury (excluding pain and suffering): $5,000 (under current law), $20,200 (under SB 281)
Personal, family and household items: Specific dollar amounts for various individual property interests; $200 for one item of wearing apparel, beds, and bedding; $300 in one refrigerator; $400 for one item of jewelry and no more than $200 in every other item of jewelry (under current law); A more broadly-defined exemption category, with an aggregate dollar amount of $10,775 for most items, and $1,350 for jewelry held primarily for personal, family or household use (under SB 281)
“Other property” ***applicable only in bankruptcy proceedings: $400 in any property (under current law), $1,075 (under SB 281)
As noted above, the exemption for “other property” applies only to bankruptcy proceedings; it is inapplicable to the collection of debt from individuals and entities not involved in bankruptcy proceedings.
In addition to the above changes related to the dollar amounts of exempt property, SB 281 also alters the procedure that creditors must follow in order to garnish the property of a debtor.
Garnishment of Property Other than Personal Earnings
Garnishment of debtors’ property other than personal earnings is usually relevant when a creditor attempts to garnish funds held by debtors on deposit at financial institutions. A debtor’s bank account can, of course, be lawfully garnished – subject to the limitations and restrictions of the law – in order to satisfy a legal judgment. SB 281 alters the provisions of the Revised Code that govern the garnishment of property other than debtors’ personal earnings.
Most notably, SB 281 adds language to the law that shields garnishees from liability when a garnishee acts in good faith in carrying out the garnishment of property other than personal earnings. Specifically, SB 281 adds the following language to the law:
Any garnishee that garnishes the property, other than personal earnings, of a judgment debtor in good faith reliance upon the order and notice of garnishment received by ordinary or regular mail service shall not be liable for damages in any civil action. RC 2716.13(B).
Unlike the current state of the law, after September 30, 2008 garnishees will no longer be subject to civil liability, so long as garnishees act in good faith reliance on the order and notice of garnishment they receive
Garnishment of Personal Earnings
Under both current law and SB 281, all creditors wishing to garnish debtors’ personal earnings must first serve a written demand letter containing specific language. SB 281 makes changes to the required language contained within that required written demand. Currently, the demand must state that demand is made for the amount of the judgment over the amount of personal earnings that are exempt from garnishment. SB 281 makes a slight but significant change; it requires that the demand be made for the amount of the judgment owed over the amount of personal earnings that may be exempt from garnishment.
SB 281 also changes the required language for orders of garnishment that are sent to employers of judgment debtors (garnishees). Prior to September 30, 2008, the order must contain an affidavit stating that the garnishee owes the debtor money for personal earnings; the new law requires that the order state that the garnishee may owe the debtor money for personal earnings.
On September 30, 2008, when SB 281’s provisions go into effect, the law related to garnishment of property belonging to debtors domiciled in Ohio will change. While the day-to-day operations of your particular entity may not be drastically altered, all WWR clients should take note of the changes and, when applicable, ensure compliance with the new law’s terms.
Joseph D. DeGiorgio is an Associate in the Collection Services department of the Grove City office. He can be reached at (614) 801-2668 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
The following is a client advisory that was sent out today to WWR’s clients:
An Analysis of Ohio’s New Foreclosure Laws
By: Larry R. Rothenberg, Esq.
Ohio’s Substitute House Bill 138, which revises many of the procedures in foreclosure actions, becomes effective on September 11, 2008. The bill originated in response to complaints by cities, that purchasers of properties at foreclosure sales were delaying the recording of the sheriff’s deed, making it difficult for the cities to determine on whom notices should be served with regard to building code violations. Hence, the original primary purpose of the bill was to authorize and require the sheriffs personally to submit the deeds for recording promptly after the bidder pays the balance due.
Various groups involved in the foreclosure process lobbied for a number of amendments, resulting in a 30-page bill by the time it was passed. This author met with the chief sponsor of the bill and testified at the Ohio Senate’s Civil Justice Committee hearing, in order to propound some new ideas to change Ohio’s laws regarding, among other things, lis pendens and publication requirements, which will shorten the timeline and reduce the costs for foreclosures. The bill as passed includes significant improvements from the lenders’ standpoint, but also presents a couple of potential headaches.
The following is a summary of the new provisions:
Under the prior law, lis pendens did not take effect until service of the summons was complete. Frequently, new liens were filed after a foreclosure commenced but before service was complete, requiring that the complaint be amended to add new lienholders as parties to the case. This caused the case to be delayed until service was completed on the new lienholders and their answer periods expired.
Under the new law, lis pendens will take effect as of the date the complaint is filed. This change in the law will bring about a significant reduction in the timeline, as amended complaints will be necessary much less frequently.
Title Evidence For Foreclosures
Under the prior law, each county decided for itself whether to require evidence of title to be filed in the case, and what form of title evidence would be required. The new law imposes a standardized requirement that a “preliminary judicial report”, which is a guarantee of title issued by a licensed title insurance agent, must be filed within 14 days after the complaint is filed, and must have an effective date not more than 30 days prior to the complaint. The only exception relates to commercial property foreclosures, in which either a preliminary judicial report or a title commitment can be filed.
Service of Summons by Publication
Service of summons by publication has always been authorized for defendants whose whereabouts are unknown. Publication was to be made once a week for six weeks. The new law reduces this requirement for foreclosures to once a week for three weeks. In addition, if the property has a street address and a permanent parcel number, it will no longer be necessary to include the complete legal description in the publication. By reducing both the number and size of the publications, the timeline in cases where service of the summons is perfected by publication will be reduced by three weeks and hundreds of dollars in publication costs should be saved.
The Sheriff is now authorized to conduct open houses to show vacant properties prior to the Sheriff’s Sale. This idea was conceived by one of the state senators, as a device to attract additional bidders to the sheriff’s sale. However, because almost all sheriffs departments are overworked and understaffed, it is unlikely that many sheriffs will actually conduct any open houses.
Advertisement of Sale
The sheriff’s advertisement of the sale is to be published for at least three weeks prior to the sale, rather than beginning thirty days prior to the sale under the prior law. This will reduce the time frame by nine days in many cases.
The successful bidder, including lienholders, must provide the sheriff with information regarding the purchaser, including the name, address and phone number of a contact person. Presumably, this information can be used by the city in order to discuss or serve notices of building code violations.
Payment of Deposit at Sale
Purchasers are generally required to pay a deposit at the time of the sale. Previously, first lienholders could obtain a waiver and were not required to make any payment at the time of the sale. However, the new law appears to require the sheriff to collect at the time of the sale, the amount of the recording and conveyance fees, and associated costs to cover the recording of the deed. Therefore, unless the sheriffs interpret the law differently, first lienholders must become accustomed to providing the required funds to their attorneys when required for the sale. An amendment has already been suggested in order to alleviate this requirement for lienholders.
Confirmation of Sale
The new law requires the court to enter the order confirming the sale within thirty days after the sale. The law does not state, and therefore it remains to be determined, what the consequence will be if the court fails to enter the order confirming the sale within that time frame.
Payment of Balance to Complete the Sale
The balance due on the purchase price must be paid within 30 days after confirmation of the sale, or the purchaser will be found in contempt of court. There is no exception for purchasers who are lienholders. Therefore, lienholders who purchase property at a sheriff’s sale must take this requirement seriously, and deliver to their attorney the balance due to complete the sale, so that the attorney can deliver it to the sheriff prior to the 30-day deadline.
Under the prior law, in most counties, the sheriff’s departments prepared the sheriff’s deed and issued it to the purchaser. Under the new law, the foreclosure attorney is to prepare the sheriff’s deed and deliver it to the sheriff for execution not later than 7 days after the court enters the order confirming the sale. Eliminating the duty to prepare the deed from the sheriff will eliminate many delays due to overworked sheriff’s departments, and will eliminate frequent errors on the deeds that are prepared. The sheriff is to record the deed within 14 days after payment of the balance due to complete the sale.
Impact on Conveyances to HUD
Previously, Ohio was a “one deed” state for conveyances to HUD. The bid could be assigned from the investor to HUD and therefore, the sheriff’s deed could convey title directly to HUD. The foreclosure attorney would hold the unrecorded sheriff’s deed until the servicer provided instructions to record the conveyance, and would then submit the sheriff’s deed for recording.
Under the new law, Ohio becomes a “two deed” state. Because the law requires the sheriff to submit the sheriff’s deed for recording, it will no longer be possible for the foreclosure attorney to hold the unrecorded sheriff’s deed until the property is in a conveyable condition to HUD. Therefore, the bid will be in the name of the investor and not assigned to HUD. The sheriff will promptly record the deed to the investor, and it will be necessary for a second deed, from the investor to HUD, to be executed on behalf of the investor and recorded after the property is in a conveyable condition.
Deeds to HUD are exempt from the conveyance fee (transfer tax) to the county at the time of the recording of the deed. The sheriff’s deed to the investor will not be exempt from the conveyance fee, although the deed from the investor to HUD will be. The conveyance fee, which must be paid upon recording the sheriff’s deed to the investor, varies from county to county, between .1% and .4% of the purchase price.
Payment of Taxes
Taxes are to be paid from the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale for any unpaid prior year’s taxes including penalties and interest, and taxes for the current year, which accrued prior to confirmation of the sale even if not yet assessed. The treasurer is to provide an estimated amount for this purpose, and the sheriff is to refund any excess after the actual amount is determined.
If you have any questions on this information, please contact Mr. Larry R. Rothenberg, Esq. Larry Rothenberg is the partner-in-charge of the Cleveland real estate and foreclosure department of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. He is the author of the Ohio Jurisdictional Section contained within the treatise, “Dunaway, The Law of Distressed Real Estate”. The firm handles foreclosures and related litigation throughout Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Larry can be reached at (216) 685-1135 or via e-mail at email@example.com.
Client Advisory is published by Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., an organization providing comprehensive creditor representation. The information contained in this advisory is a summary of legal information and is not intended to constitute legal advice on specific matters or create an attorney-client relationship. Contact any of our offices or visit our website at realestatedefaultgroup.com for more real estate related information, company facts and attorney profiles. ©2008