Ohio Supreme Court Expands Borrowers' Post-Sale Appeal Rights
By Steve Sacks, Esq. | McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLP * | Usfn Member (AL, CA, CT, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, WA)
The Ohio Supreme Court has issued a significant decision that changes the landscape of foreclosure appeals in Ohio and creates additional considerations for mortgage servicers and investors when a foreclosure judgment is challenged on appeal.
In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Doberdruk, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2674 (July 15, 2026), the Court unanimously held that a borrower may continue pursuing an appeal of a foreclosure judgment even after the property has been sold at sheriff’s sale and the sale proceeds have been distributed. The decision resolves a longstanding conflict among Ohio appellate districts and overturns prior precedent that treated such appeals as moot when the borrower failed to obtain a stay pending appeal.
The case arose after the borrower appealed a foreclosure judgment and sought to stay the sheriff’s sale. The trial court conditioned a stay on the posting of a supersedeas bond that exceeded $472,000, which the borrower was unable to provide. The property was subsequently sold and the sale was confirmed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot, concluding that no meaningful relief could be provided once the sale was completed.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed.
Relying on Ohio Revised Code § 2329.45, the Court held that borrowers retain the ability to seek restitution if a foreclosure judgment is later reversed, even though the property has been sold to a third-party purchaser. While the borrower generally cannot recover title to the property or unwind a completed sale, the Court found that the statute preserves a post-sale remedy through monetary restitution.
As a result, a foreclosure appeal does not automatically become moot merely because a borrower failed to obtain a stay or supersedeas bond before the sale occurred.
For servicers and investors, the ruling creates an additional layer of risk when proceeding to sale while an appeal is pending. Although a completed sale will generally remain final as to the third-party purchaser, reversal of the underlying foreclosure judgment may expose parties that received sale proceeds to restitution claims. In practical terms, the litigation may continue after the sale, focusing on the proper allocation and recovery of sale proceeds rather than ownership of the property itself.
Accordingly, mortgage servicers and investors should carefully evaluate whether to proceed with a foreclosure sale during an active appeal. While business considerations will vary by case, a more conservative approach may be to delay the sale until the appeal is fully resolved, thereby reducing the risk of additional post-sale litigation and potential restitution exposure.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Clients should consult counsel regarding the application of this decision to specific matters or files.
Copyright © 2026 USFN
USFNews - Sep. 2, 2026
*Denotes firm is a recipient of the 2024 USFN Award of Excellence.