A recent appellate court decision has clarified how creditors can enforce judgment liens against properties held in joint tenancy, impacting individuals who co-own homes with someone facing legal debts. The ruling confirms that when one co-owner is subject to a judgment lien, the creditor may pursue foreclosure and sale of the entire property, with protections in place for the non-debtor’s share of proceeds.
The decision was issued by the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals for Delaware County, Ohio, on April 17, 2026. The appeal was filed by Joni Fingerhut and her husband Peter Fingerhut against the Columbus Zoological Park Association, following a foreclosure action initiated by the Zoo in Delaware County Court of Common Pleas (Case No. 25 CVE 02 0213).
According to court documents, Peter and Joni Fingerhut own a single-family home at 5902 Shadow Woods Court as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The Columbus Zoological Park Association holds a judgment lien against Peter Fingerhut stemming from his criminal convictions for aggravated theft and related offenses. On December 10, 2024, the Zoo filed a certificate of judgment for $639,297.33 after Mr. Fingerhut failed to pay restitution ordered as part of his sentence.
The Zoo sought to enforce its lien through foreclosure under Ohio law. While there was no dispute that the Zoo could foreclose on Mr. Fingerhut’s interest in the property—since only he was subject to the judgment—the case centered on whether this allowed for sale of just his fractional interest or required sale of the entire home. Joni Fingerhut opposed selling her half-interest and filed her own motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Zoo, finding it had properly obtained and recorded its lien according to statute. The court ordered sale of the entire property under Ohio Revised Code sections including R.C. 2327.02(A)(1), 2329.02, and 2323.07.
On appeal, Joni Fingerhut argued that R.C. 5302.20(C)(4) mandated only Mr. Fingerhut’s fractional interest could be sold—not her own undivided share—and challenged both summary judgment and entry of foreclosure decree as errors.
The appellate opinion explains that under Ohio law, once a valid lien is established against one joint tenant’s interest in real estate, courts have discretion regarding remedies: “ordering the sale of a fractional interest is permissive,” not mandatory, because “the legislature chose to use the word ‘may’” rather than ‘shall’ regarding such sales.
Citing prior decisions such as White v. Parks (2009-Ohio-703), Judge Robert G. Montgomery wrote: “We conclude the plain language of R.C. 5302.20(C)(4) does not prohibit a court from ordering the sale of the entire property owned by joint tenants, even if only one tenant is the judgment-debtor.” The opinion further notes that while an entire property may be sold at foreclosure—even if only one owner owes money—the non-debtor’s share must be protected: “the judgment creditor can only reach the debtor’s interest in the property; a non-debtor could not be ordered to help satisfy the judgment creditor out of her foreclosure sale proceeds.”
The appeals court found no error in either granting summary judgment or entering decree and foreclosure as requested by the Columbus Zoological Park Association: “Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are overruled and the judgment…is affirmed in all respects.”
As relief, plaintiffs sought judicial authorization for full foreclosure on their lien against Peter Fingerhut’s share but pursued sale of the whole home; proceeds will be distributed so that Joni Fingerhut receives her protected portion before any funds go toward satisfying Mr. Fingerhut’s debt.
Attorneys representing Columbus Zoological Park Association were Scott E. North, Fred G. Pressley Jr., and Adanna M. Smith; attorneys Rick L. Ashton and Adam M. Schwartz represented Peter and Joni Fingerhut on appeal before Judges William B. Hoffman, Craig R. Baldwin, and Robert G. Montgomery (Case ID: 25 CAE 11 0100).
Source: 2026Ohio1436_The_Columbus_Zoological_Park_Association_v_Fingerhut_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
