A one-day procedural shortcut cost the credit union its judgment
An Ohio appeals court reversed a foreclosure judgment after the trial court jumped the gun on a deadline.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled on October 5, 2026, that the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas violated the borrower's due process rights when it granted Wright-Patt Credit Union summary judgment before the borrower's time to respond had expired.
The loan dates to October 2022, when a Zanesville-based LLC borrowed $500,000 from Wright-Patt, secured by a first-lien mortgage on commercial property at 2455 Maysville Pike, Zanesville. The business owner personally guaranteed the debt, and the credit union also held an assignment of rents and leases on the property.
Payments stopped in October 2024. Wright-Patt declared a default, accelerated the note, and filed for foreclosure in April 2025. Other parties with interests in the property included Riverside Bank of Dublin, which held a junior mortgage, and the Muskingum County Treasurer, which held a statutory tax lien.
The borrower and guarantor entered the case in September 2025 through a joint stipulation waiving service. After an extension, they filed their answer in November 2025, denying all claims and raising thirteen affirmative defenses.
Wright-Patt moved for summary judgment in January 2026. That part was routine.
What happened next was not.
On February 18, the borrower filed a motion under Ohio Civil Rule 56(F) asking the court to hold the summary judgment motion in abeyance while it gathered evidence. Wright-Patt filed its opposition on March 3. Under Civil Rule 6, the borrower then had seven days to file a reply.
The trial court gave it one. On March 4, it granted summary judgment and entered a decree of foreclosure.
The appeals court, in a unanimous opinion, called this reversible error. The court cited the principle that Civil Rule 6 "reflects the fact '[f]undamental due process principles require that each party have the opportunity to be heard prior to a trial court rendering a decision.'" A trial court must wait for the reply window to close before treating a motion as submitted.
The court sustained the borrower's first two assignments of error and found the third - concerning parties that had been served but never responded - premature given the remand. The case goes back so the borrower can file its reply. Costs were assessed to the credit union.
For lenders pushing foreclosure timelines, the lesson lands close to home: a one-day jump on a procedural clock cost the credit union its judgment and sent the case back to square one.
