The Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's ruling in the case of Awad v. Lovelace, which involves a foreclosure dispute between property owner Osama Awad and Wendell Lovelace. The court's decision, released on July 2, 2026, confirms that Awad did not sufficiently prove the amount of money owed in his foreclosure claim. This ruling affects both parties as they navigate their legal rights regarding the property located at 6622 St. Clair Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio.
The case began in September 2018 when Awad filed a verified complaint for foreclosure against the Lovelaces and other interested parties. Awad claimed that he purchased the notes, mortgages, and tax certificates related to the property in 2007. He alleged that Wendell Lovelace, the titled owner, failed to make necessary payments for the mortgage, real estate taxes, and insurance. Awad sought various forms of relief, including foreclosure and monetary damages for expenses incurred while maintaining the property.
The Lovelaces responded with counterclaims against Awad, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, among other claims. They sought monetary damages, a full accounting of the property, and other forms of legal relief. The dispute escalated through various motions and hearings, eventually leading to a bench trial in April 2024.
In the trial court, Awad filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding his claims. However, the court found that Awad had not proven the amount of principal and interest due on the mortgage. The magistrate concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the amount owed. The court adopted this decision in August 2022, which set the stage for further proceedings.
After a bench trial, the magistrate issued a decision in January 2025, ruling against Awad and in favor of the Lovelaces. The magistrate found that Awad failed to establish the amount of principal and interest due and therefore was not entitled to a foreclosure decree. The Lovelaces also raised a new claim for disgorgement of profits, which the magistrate rejected because it was not included in their original complaint.
Awad appealed the trial court's decisions, raising two main assignments of error. He argued that the court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment and in not applying certain legal doctrines that he believed would prevent the Lovelaces from taking possession of the property. The Lovelaces also filed cross-assignments of error, claiming that the court erred by not awarding disgorgement damages and by denying their unjust enrichment counterclaim based on the statute of limitations.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Emanuella D. Groves, found that both parties had waived their rights to challenge the magistrate's decisions because they failed to file timely objections. The court stated, "Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion... unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)." This ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation.
The court also noted that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally moot if the disputed facts are fully considered in a subsequent trial. Since the bench trial addressed the accounting issue's merits, any error in denying the summary judgment was deemed moot. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Awad did not meet his burden of proof for his foreclosure claim.
The ruling has significant implications for both parties. For Awad, the court's decision means he cannot proceed with his foreclosure claim against the Lovelaces, impacting his financial interests in the property. For the Lovelaces, the ruling upholds their position and prevents Awad from claiming damages related to the property. The case highlights the complexities involved in foreclosure disputes and the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings.
Looking ahead, the Lovelaces have filed a separate complaint against Awad for malicious prosecution and to quiet title, indicating that the legal battles over the property are far from over. The Ohio Court of Appeals' ruling in this case reinforces the need for clear documentation and adherence to legal procedures in property disputes.