Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)
141 Ohio St. 3d 75
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Kuchta defendants signed a promissory note and mortgage with Wells Fargo; Bank of America later claimed to hold the note and mortgage.
- Bank of America filed a 2010 foreclosure action attaching the note and mortgage; Kuchtas did not respond to the summary-judgment motion.
- Assignment of the mortgage to Bank of America was executed June 10, 2010 and recorded June 23, 2010.
- Trial court granted summary judgment and entered a foreclosure decree in June 2011; no appeal followed.
- Kuchtas moved to vacate under Civ.R. 60(B)(3), asserting lack of standing and fraud; Ninth District remanded for Schwartzwald analysis.
- This Court held that Civ.R. 60(B)(3) cannot substitute for a timely appeal and that lack of standing does not void ab initio subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(3) relief can substitute for an appeal on standing | Kuchtas argued 60(B)(3) allows relief for lack of standing as fraud/misconduct. | Bank of America contends 60(B)(3) cannot relitigate standing; issues must be appealed timely. | No; 60(B)(3) cannot substitute for a timely appeal on standing. |
| Whether res judicata bars the Civ.R. 60(B) collateral attack on standing | Kuchtas relied on 60(B) to relitigate standing not raised on appeal. | Res judicata bars raising standing in a 60(B) motion if not raised earlier. | Res judicata bars the attempted collateral attack on the judgment. |
| Whether lack of standing affects subject-matter jurisdiction or only case-specific jurisdiction | Lack of standing renders the judgment void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. | Standing is a jurisdictional issue but does not defeat subject-matter jurisdiction of the court. | Lack of standing does not render the judgment void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (standing can be jurisdictional but not equivalent to subject-matter jurisdiction in collateral attacks)
- Botts v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2012-Ohio-5383 (10th Dist. Franklin) (standing not jurisdictional in sense of destroying subject-matter jurisdiction; 60(B) remedy improper)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (requirements for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (equity to relieve against judgments after fraud)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (limits of relief from judgments; not allowed for self-forfeited appeals)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 2004-Ohio-1980 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (subject-matter jurisdiction distinctions; error may be voidable, not void)
- Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101 (2006-Ohio-1934) (Civ.R. 60(B) relief and res judicata considerations)