The Ohio Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court's ruling in the case FIG OH18, L.L.C. v. Valentik, No. 115575, which involved a foreclosure dispute and a motion for sanctions against an attorney. The decision, released on June 25, 2026, affects the parties involved in the foreclosure case and sets a precedent regarding the standards for imposing sanctions on attorneys in similar situations.
The case centers around a foreclosure complaint filed by FIG as Custodian for FIG OH18, LLC against William G. Valentik and others. The dispute arose after FIG claimed ownership of a tax certificate on a property in Lakewood, Ohio, and sought to foreclose on it. Jeffrey Slavin, who had previously represented Valentik, became embroiled in the case when he filed a cross-claim against Valentik, asserting that he held mortgages on the property.
Slavin's involvement escalated when he sought sanctions against Edward F. Herman, Valentik's attorney, claiming that Herman's arguments in defense of Valentik were frivolous and violated Ohio laws regarding conduct in civil actions. The trial court denied Slavin's motion for sanctions without a hearing, prompting Slavin to appeal the decision.
The Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Lisa B. Forbes, reviewed the case and ultimately upheld the trial court's ruling. The court found that Slavin did not demonstrate that Herman's defenses were made in bad faith or were otherwise frivolous. The court stated, "The trial court was not faced with such a scenario," referring to the lack of evidence showing that Herman's conduct served merely to harass Slavin.
The background of the case reveals that FIG filed the foreclosure complaint on October 22, 2021, alleging ownership of a tax certificate on the property. Slavin was added as a defendant when FIG amended its complaint, asserting that he held two mortgages on the property stemming from promissory notes executed by Valentik in 2014 and 2018.
During the proceedings, Herman argued that Slavin's claims were against public policy and that the promissory notes and mortgages could be deemed unenforceable due to the lack of legal safeguards required under Ohio's Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court eventually ruled in favor of FIG, granting foreclosure on the property but did not make further findings regarding Slavin's claims.
After the trial court's ruling, Slavin filed a motion for sanctions against Herman, claiming that Herman's arguments were frivolous and violated Ohio's civil rules. However, the trial court denied Slavin's motion, stating that he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of frivolous conduct.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals noted that Slavin's arguments did not clearly distinguish between the grounds for sanctions under Ohio law. The court emphasized that Slavin failed to demonstrate that Herman's defenses were egregious or that they lacked a legal basis. The court stated that simply advancing a losing argument does not amount to frivolous conduct.
The court's decision has significant implications for future cases involving attorney conduct and the imposition of sanctions. It highlights the importance of demonstrating egregious behavior when seeking sanctions and reinforces the notion that attorneys can raise legitimate defenses without facing penalties.
As for what lies ahead, Slavin may still have the option to pursue further legal action, but the court's ruling effectively closes the door on his motion for sanctions against Herman. The decision serves as a reminder of the high threshold required to prove frivolous conduct in legal proceedings.