Tag Archives: trial court

U.S. Bank Had Standing to Bring Action

Posted on by

The court in deciding United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. McHugh, 2013-Ohio-5473 (Ohio Ct. App., Lucas County, 2013) affirmed the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.

In their sole assignment of error, McHugh argued that US Bank did not have standing to pursue the underlying foreclosure action. US Bank responded by arguing that McHugh’s argument was misplaced in that it failed to address the applicable standard for a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). Further, US Bank argued that the trial court’s decision was proper in light of McHugh’s failure to meet the standard for Civ.R. 60(B) motions.

Ultimately the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying their Civ.R. 60(B) motion.

Alabama Court Reverses Lower Court’s Decision Granting Summary Judgment to Foreclosing Entity

Posted on by

The court in deciding Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, 2013 Ala. Civ. App. (Ala. Civ. App., 2013) reversed the lower court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to a foreclosing entity with respect to its complaint in ejectment against a mortgagor under Ala. Code § 6-6-280(b).

The court’s decision was based on the fact that the foreclosing entity presented no evidence that it was either the assignee of the mortgage or the holder of the note at the time it foreclosed, it failed to present a prima facie case that it had the authority to foreclose and, thus, had valid title to or the right to possess the property–one of the elements of its claim in ejectment.

Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Bank as Genuine Issue of Fact Existed as to Whether the Bank held the Note

Posted on by

The court in deciding U.S. Bank N.A. v. Kamal, 2013-Ohio-5380 (Ohio Ct. App., Mahoning County, 2013) reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The court decided that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether U.S. Bank was the holder of the note or mortgage when the complaint was filed and as to whether U.S. Bank complied with the default provisions in the note and mortgage. Therefore, the grant of summary judgment in U.S. Bank’s favor was reversed and the matter was remanded for further summary judgment proceedings.

Defendants-appellants appealed the decision of the lower court, which granted summary judgment and issued a decree of foreclosure for U.S. Bank National Association. Three issues were raised; the first was whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether U.S. Bank complied with the notice of default provisions in the note and mortgage. The second issue was whether U.S. Bank was a real party in interest when the foreclosure complaint was filed. The third issue was whether the trial court should have struck certain evidence that U.S. Bank used to support its request for summary judgment.

This court ultimately held that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the bank was the holder of the note when the complaint was filed, as the record was devoid of any evidence proving the date on which the bank became the holder. There was also a genuine issue of fact as to when the mortgage was assigned, as the assignment contained information not known on the date the mortgage was executed and the only other logical date was the date the assignment was recorded, which occurred after the complaint was filed. Additionally a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the bank complied with the notice of default and acceleration provision, as there was no evidence as to how the bank notified the debtor as the acceleration.

Ultimately, the lower court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded for further summary judgment proceedings.

Ohio Court Finds that Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Complaint did not Deprive it of Jurisdiction Over Defendants and Their TILA Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wick, 2013-Ohio-5422 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County, 2013) found that the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s foreclosure complaint did not deprive it of jurisdiction over defendants and their TILA claims, as these claims were separate and independent of the foreclosure complaint.

The Wicks claimed that the trial court erred in dismissing all of their counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims when it dismissed Wells Fargo’s foreclosure complaint for failure to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. In ruling on the Wicks’ motion for reconsideration, however, this court determined that, with the exception of the TILA claims, the trial court’s dismissal of the Wicks’ claims was without prejudice and, therefore, as it related to those non-TILA claims, the trial court’s dismissal was not a final, appealable order.

On appeal, this court determined in considering the merits of the case, that a proper and validly asserted counterclaim is not extinguished by a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of its claims when the court has jurisdiction to proceed on the counterclaim. This court found, therefore, that where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the controversy, the borrowers’ counterclaim that does not arise from the note or mortgage can remain pending for independent adjudication.

Similarly, this court found that the trial court’s conclusion in this case that it lacked jurisdiction over the foreclosure claim because the bank lacked standing did not extinguished the Wicks’ proper and validly asserted claims.

Ohio Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Arch Bay Holdings

Posted on by

The court in deciding Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-5453 (Ohio Ct. App., Montgomery County, 2013) found that the lower court did not err in confirming the sheriff’s sale, thus the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court was affirmed.

Daniel Lee Brown appealed the lower court’s final order confirming a post-foreclosure sheriff’s sale of his residence and distributing the proceeds. First, he contended that the lower court erred in finding that appellee – Arch Bay Holdings – had standing to foreclose. Second, Brown claimed that the trial court erred in dismissing his counterclaims. Third, he asserted that the trial court erred in confirming the sheriff’s sale where no appraisal was performed.

Upon review, this court promptly disposed of Brown’s arguments about the lower court’s dismissal of his counterclaims and Arch Bay’s standing to foreclose. This court also determined that arguments about the counterclaims were barred by res judicata because Brown could have raised them in the prior appeal, which he filed after the trial court dismissed the counterclaims and filed a decree of foreclosure. Further, this court reviewed the evidence and upheld the lower court’s finding that Arch Bay had standing because it possessed the note and mortgage when it filed suit. Thus this court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Ohio Appeals Court Denies Assignment Error Claim Brought by Appellee

Posted on by

The court in deciding United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. McHugh, 2013-Ohio-5473 (Ohio Ct. App., Lucas County, 2013) concluded that the trial court properly denied mortgagors’ motion under Civ.R. 60(B)(2).

Appellants argued that appellee lacked standing and was not the real party in interest. They also alleged that they were entitled to relief pursuant to their discovery of new evidence in the form of a pooling service agreement that confirmed appellee’s lack of standing.

Appellee opposed appellants’ motion on the basis that it was barred by res judicata, untimely, and failed to establish grounds for relief pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(2).

After considering the parties’ arguments, the court denied appellants’ motion. In its judgment entry, the court determined that the evidence relied upon by appellants in supporting their Civ.R. 60(B) motion was available to them prior to summary judgment and, therefore, was not newly discovered evidence. Further, the court found that appellants failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense as required under the Ohio Supreme Court. Finally, the court concluded that appellants’ motion was not filed within a reasonable time pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B).

Since Bank was the Note-Holder it was a Person Entitled to Enforce the Note Pursuant to R.C. 1303.31(A)(1)

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013-Ohio-5795 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County, 2013) affirmed the decision of the lower court.

The court found that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument subject to relevant provisions of R.C. Chapter 1303 because it contained a promise to pay the lender the amount of $100,000, plus interest, and did not require any other undertakings that would render the note nonnegotiable.

Further, the court found that since the bank was the holder of the note it was a person entitled to enforce the note pursuant to R.C. 1303.31(A)(1). Based on the authorization, the note became payable to the bank as an identified person and, because the bank was the identified person in possession of the note, it was the holder of the note.

Lastly, as the property owner’s defenses to the mortgage foreclosure did not fit the criteria of a denial, defense, or claim in recoupment under R.C. 1303.36 or R.C. 1303.35, the bank’s right to payment and to enforce the obligation was not subject to the owner’s alleged meritorious defenses.