Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)
21 N.E.3d 1040
Ohio
2014

Background

  • Bank of America filed foreclosure against the Kuchtas and attached the original note and mortgage.
  • Bank claimed to hold the note and mortgage following a June 2010 assignment from Wells Fargo; assignment recorded June 23, 2010.
  • Kuchtas answered pro se and challenged BofA’s standing to proceed, arguing lack of proof of assignment.
  • Trial court granted summary judgment for Bank in June 2011; foreclosure decree entered; no appeal by Kuchtas.
  • Kuchtas moved under Civ.R. 60(B)(3) to vacate, alleging fraud/misrepresentation about standing and ownership.
  • Ninth District conflicted with Botts; Supreme Court granted certification and held lack of standing cannot support Civ.R. 60(B)(3) relief or voidness; remanded to apply Schwartzwald.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(3) may be used to attack lack of standing Kuchta argued Civ.R. 60(B)(3) allows relief for lack of standing through fraud/misrepresentation. Bank contends Civ.R. 60(B)(3) cannot substitute for an appeal on standing. No; Civ.R. 60(B)(3) cannot be used to attack standing.
Whether lack of standing can be raised to obtain relief from judgment via Civ.R. 60(B) Kuchta maintained lack of standing warrants relief from judgment. Bank contends standing is appealable, not collateral relief via Civ.R. 60(B). Lack of standing cannot be used to obtain Civ.R. 60(B) relief.
Whether lack of standing affects subject-matter jurisdiction Kuchta argued lack of standing voids the judgment ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. Bank argued standing is jurisdictional but not equivalent to subject-matter jurisdiction; the court remains within jurisdiction. Lack of standing does not render judgment void; subject-matter jurisdiction remains intact.
Whether res judicata bars collateral attack on foreclosure judgment Kuchta asserted Civ.R. 60(B) relief should allow re-litigation of standing issues. Bank argued res judicata bars collateral attack on standing not raised on appeal. Res judicata bars use of Civ.R. 60(B) to relitigate standing; cannot collateral attack via Civ.R. 60(B).

Key Cases Cited

  • Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (standing must exist at filing; lack of standing cannot be cured post filing)
  • Botts v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2012-Ohio-5383 (10th Dist. Franklin) (lack of standing does not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction; Civ.R. 60(B) not a vehicle for collateral relief)
  • GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (requirements for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B))
  • Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101 (2006-Ohio-1934) (Civ.R. 60(B) relief not a substitute for appeal)
  • Schwartzwald (Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald) (see above), 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (see above)
  • Pratts v. Hurley, 2004-Ohio-1980 (102 Ohio St.3d 81) (jurisdictional concepts; statutory vs. subject-matter jurisdiction)
  • Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998-Ohio-315) (distinctions among jurisdiction concepts)
  • Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (equity relief limits and relief from judgments doctrine)
  • Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (limits of relief from judgments and equity principles)
Read the full case