A borrower who attempts but fails to stop a property foreclosure can seek restitution after the property has been sold, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that an appeal of a foreclosure is not moot if the trial court refuses to stay the foreclosure proceedings and allows the property to be sold. The Court found R.C. 2329.45 allows a borrower who challenges a foreclosure to seek restitution if an appeals court rules the foreclosure was improper.

Writing for the Court, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins explained that some Ohio appeals courts, including the Eighth District Court of Appeals, have ruled that an appeal from a foreclosure is moot if a stay has not been secured, the property was sold, and the proceeds from the sale have been distributed. However, R.C. 2329.45 indicates that while property owners who have not secured a stay cannot recover their property, they can seek financial compensation through court-ordered restitution.

“Moreover, courts may generally impose restitution by court order and routinely do so in situations involving claims of unjust enrichment to recoup a benefit conferred on a party,” Justice Hawkins wrote.

Today’s decision reversed an Eighth District ruling that Grace Doberdruk’s appeal of her foreclosure was moot because she was unable to post a bond and stay the order to sell her home at a sheriff’s auction. The Court ordered the appeals court to consider the merits of Doberdruk’s challenge to her foreclosure and determine whether the lender, Wells Fargo Bank, owes her restitution.

Owner Contests Property Foreclosure
Wells Fargo filed in December 2022 to foreclose on Doberdruk’s home in Cuyahoga County. The bank alleged she was in default on $449,905 in principal on the loan, along with interest, associated costs, and expenses.

Doberdruk contested the sale. Both she and Wells Fargo sought summary judgment in their favor. The trial court sided with Wells Fargo and entered a judgment of foreclosure in January 2024. The trial court issued an order to the Cuyahoga County sheriff in February 2024 to conduct the sale of Doberdruk’s property.

Doberdruk appealed the foreclosure judgment to the Eighth District. She also requested that the trial court stay the sheriff’s sale pending her appeal. The trial court denied the motion and allowed the sale to proceed. Her property was sold at auction in May 2024. Doberdruk again attempted to stop the finalization of the sale, asking the trial court to stay the confirmation of the sale, the distribution of the sale proceeds, and the recording of the deed by the property buyer.

The trial court indicated it would stay the proceedings if Doberdruk posted a “supersedeas bond”—a financial guarantee to protect the appellee—in the amount of $472,905 within 21 days. Doberdruk did not post the bond, the trial court confirmed the sale, and the deed was delivered to the buyer.  Doberdruk asked the trial court to vacate the sale and sought an emergency motion to stop the distribution of the sale proceeds to Wells Fargo. The trial court denied the requests.

Appeals Court Questioned Whether Case Could Move Forward
Because she had failed to obtain a stay, the property was sold, and the proceeds distributed, the Eighth District questioned whether Doberdruk’s appeal of the judgment of foreclosure was moot. Wells Fargo argued it was, maintaining the restitution offered by R.C. 2329.45 applied only to those who obtained a stay of the foreclosure proceedings.

Doberdruk argued that because she pursued a stay, but failed, and did not voluntarily settle the matter with Wells Fargo, she could seek restitution if her appeal was successful. The Eighth District agreed with Wells Fargo and dismissed the appeal. The appeals court acknowledged that its decision conflicted with other appellate courts in the state.

Doberdruk appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider her case and the conflict among the appellate districts.

Supreme Court Analyzed Restitution Law
Justice Hawkins explained that, generally, when an appeal is pending, and an event occurs that makes it impossible for the appellate court to grant any effective relief to the prevailing party, the case is moot and the court must dismiss the appeal.

The Court noted that a party can challenge the right to grant foreclosure. Appealing a foreclosure does not automatically stay the proceedings and halt the efforts to sell the property until the appeal is resolved, the Court noted. Typically, a property owner can obtain a stay to stop the sale by posting a supersedeas bond or other collateral to pay the judgment owed for defaulting on the loan.

The Court examined the provisions of R.C. 2329.45, which state that if a judgment is satisfied by selling land or structures on the land, and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the reversal does not affect the transfer of title to the new owner. However, the judgment creditor must pay restitution in an amount equal to the sale price, with interest.

A foreclosure constitutes a judgment in satisfaction of a land sale, and R.C. 2329.45 applies to appeals of foreclosures, the opinion stated. By stating that restitution is an available remedy after a property is sold plainly indicates the law applies after the distribution of the proceeds, the Court ruled. Nothing in the law requires a person to post a bond or secure a stay in order to pursue restitution, the opinion stated.

The Court noted that Wells Fargo argued that if restitution could be sought without posting a bond, then the purpose of securing a bond to ensure creditors are paid would be meaningless. The opinion noted that those attempting to stop foreclosures would still consider posting a bond.

R.C. 2329.45 does not invalidate the sale of the property, the opinion stated. If a bond is not secured, the property owner cannot stop the sale or the transfer of ownership to a buyer. “Obtaining a stay of execution of a judgment of foreclosure will remain a critical step” for a party attempting to stop the transfer of ownership, the Court stated.

Failure to Obtain Stay Not Voluntary Settlement
The Court also considered the argument that failing to post the supersedeas bond constituted a voluntary “satisfaction of judgment,” which would make an appeal of a foreclosure moot. The opinion noted the Court’s 1990 Blodgett v. Blodgett decision held that when parties voluntarily settle the debt while an appeal is pending, the matter is moot because there is nothing for the appeals court to decide.

Some appellate courts have equated failure to post a bond and obtain a stay with voluntarily satisfying a judgment. The Court noted Doberdruk did not voluntarily settle with Wells Fargo, and the law does not require posting a bond to seek restitution. The Court found she retained her right to restitution if she is successful in her appeal.

2024-1669 and 2025-0071. Wells Fargo Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Doberdruk, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2674.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.