BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Mapp
2014 Ohio 2005
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mapp executed a $284,200 adjustable-rate note to Countrywide Bank on 7/2/2008 secured by an open-end mortgage with MERS as mortgagee acting as nominee for Countrywide and successors.
- Exhibit A attached to the mortgage identified two parcels at 7 Brushback Court, Fairfield, Ohio; mortgage was recorded on 7/10/2008.
- Countrywide Bank merged into Countrywide Bank N.A. on 4/27/2009 and later merged with Bank of America; Mapp defaulted on 2/1/2010 and the note was assigned to BAC via MERS on 5/28/2010.
- BAC, as successor to Countrywide Bank and BAC, filed foreclosure on 9/28/2010 with the note indorsed in blank; Bank of America was substituted as plaintiff on 9/28/2011 after a later merger.
- Bank of America moved for summary judgment; Mapp did not respond; trial court granted judgment for BAC/Bank of America and ordered sale of the property.
- In 2012, Mapp challenged standing pro se; the trial court denied relief as to jurisdiction post-judgment; on remand, Mapp was represented and raised Civ.R.60(B) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did BAC/Bank of America have standing at filing? | Mapp argued BAC lacked standing to sue at filing. | Bank of America had standing via note in blank and mortgage interest via MERS assignment. | BAC had standing; no vacatur of judgment. |
| Whether Civ.R.60(B) relief was warranted for standing and related defenses | Mapp claimed meritorious defenses including lack of standing and improper documents. | BOA established standing and other defenses lacked merit; no relief warranted. | No abuse of discretion; no meritorious defense established. |
| Whether the alleged forgery/tampering of documents constitutes a meritorious defense | Mapp asserts forged/altered mortgage documents affecting two parcels. | Exhibit A references two parcels and MERS authority to assign; allegations insufficient. | Insufficient operative facts; no defense shown. |
| Whether failure to respond to summary judgment constitutes excusable neglect | Mapp claimed excusable neglect due to business/divorce distractions. | Non-response was intentional; not excusable neglect. | No relief under Civ.R.60(B)(1). |
| Whether damages were properly supported | Damages supported by loan payment history and attached documents. | No counter-evidence provided to dispute damages. | Evidence sufficient; no relief under Civ.R.60(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (standing requires interest in note or mortgage at filing; cannot be cured by later assignment)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Burke, 2013-Ohio-2860 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-12-245) (standing can be established by either note or mortgage at filing)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Patterson, 2012-Ohio-5894 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98360) (use of 'or' in noting required interest to file)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Blouse, 2013-Ohio-4537 (12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2013-02-002) (standing review de novo)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Kapitula, 2013-Ohio-2638 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-08-058) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Civ.R.60(B) review)
- SRMOF 2009-1 Trust v. Lewis, 2014-Ohio-71 (12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2012-11-239 and CA2013-05-068) (MERS assignment authority supporting standing)
- Haas v. SRMOF 2009-1 Trust, 2014-Ohio-438 (Ohio) (MERS authority to assign mortgage when designated as nominee/mortgagee)