2014 Ohio 2932
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2007 Shingleton signed a note for $44,080 secured by a mortgage on 409 Wilson Street, Malvern, Ohio; Countrywide was the lender and both Shingleton and her then-husband Miller signed the mortgage.
- Following their dissolution, Miller quitclaimed his dower interest to Shingleton; the mortgage was later assigned to Bank of America.
- Shingleton defaulted on the note, and Bank of America filed a foreclosure action in September 2012; the note bore a blank indorsement and an assignment of the mortgage to Bank of America was attached.
- The trial court entered default judgment in January 2013 and the sheriff’s sale occurred in June 2013; Shingleton later moved to vacate the judgment claiming lack of standing and related defects.
- Shingleton argued Bank of America lacked standing, failed to attach merger documentation, and raised concerns about a MERS assignment; Bank of America contended standing was established by the blank indorsement and direct mortgage assignment.
- The trial court denied the motion to vacate in September 2013; the court treated the motion as both Civ.R. 60(B) and a common-law motion, ultimately affirming standing and denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bank of America have standing to foreclose at filing? | Bank of America was holder via blank indorsement and direct mortgage assignment. | Standing required proof at filing; merger documents should have been attached. | Bank of America had standing; lack of merger docs did not deprive subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) or common-law vacatur governs | Court should apply Civ.R. 60(B) relief; common-law vacatur not applicable to standing issues. | Inherent common-law authority can vacate void judgments if lack of standing voids the judgment. | Jurisdictional holding not void; Civ.R. 60(B) governs, but judgment not void; no relief under either theory. |
| Effect of merger documentation and MERS assignment on standing | Merger docs not required to prove current holder with blank-indorsed note; mortgage assignment via MERS is valid. | Failure to attach merger documents undermines standing; MERS assignment may be questionable. | Attachment of note and mortgage sufficed; merger docs were not essential to establish standing; MERS assignment did not defeat standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Loncar, 7th Dist. No. 11 MA 174, 2013-Ohio-2959 (Ohio Court of Appeals Seventh District (2013)) (holder of the note has standing to foreclose)
- Schwartzwald v. Bank, 134 Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017 (Ohio Supreme Court (2012)) (standing at filing required; not cured by later assignment)
- Horn v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2013-Ohio-2374 (Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals (2013)) (merger documents attachability; lack of documents can affect standing analysis)
- Santisi v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 11th Dist. No. 2013-T-0048, 2013-Ohio-5848 (Ohio Seventh District/Eleventh District relation (2013)) (blank indorsement establishes bearer instrument; attachment suffices to prove standing)
- Fishel v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2012-Ohio-4117 (Ohio Seventh District (2012)) (lack of standing to initiate foreclosure does not void an otherwise valid judgment)
- Finney v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2013-Ohio-4884 (Ohio Tenth District (2013)) (dispute over void vs voidable judgments; conflict on standing impact)