Bank of Am., N.A. v. Beato, 2016 Ohio 8035

In 2007 Beato executed a $540,000 promissory note and mortgage on a Youngstown property; he later defaulted.
Bank of America (BANA) sued in 2012 seeking judgment on the note and foreclosure; copies of the note (endorsed in blank), mortgage, and assignment were attached to the complaint.
BANA moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit from AVP Alan Haben stating BANA’s business records show default, acceleration, amount due, and that BANA possessed the note; an account information statement was attached.
Beato opposed pro se, sought to strike Haben’s affidavit for lack of personal knowledge of note possession, and submitted uncertified deposition/trial excerpts from other matters.
The trial court granted summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure; Beato appealed asserting genuine issues of material fact and inadmissible hearsay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Haben's affidavit and BANA business records provided admissible foundation under Evid.R. 803(6) to prove possession of the note and debt	Habe n, as AVP, had personal knowledge of record-keeping procedures and reviewed BANA records; affidavit and attached account statement satisfy business-records foundation	Beato: Haben lacked first-hand knowledge of possession; affidavit is hearsay and insufficiently detailed about his job duties and the records	Court: Affidavit met Evid.R. 803(6) requirements (witness familiar with record creation/maintenance); attachment of copy of note endorsed in blank to complaint further supports possession; summary judgment on foreclosure proper
Whether Beato’s submitted deposition/trial excerpts created a triable issue of fact	Beato relied on excerpts to challenge Haben's reliance on records	BANA: Excerpts were uncertified/unsworn and therefore inadmissible under Civ.R. 56(C)	Court: Unsworn/uncertified documents have no evidentiary value on summary judgment and could not be considered; they did not create a genuine issue

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment prerequisites)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s and nonmovant’s burdens on summary judgment)
Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (mortgagor must establish interest/standing)
Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Assoc., Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598 (material facts determined by substantive law)
State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (requirements for business-records exception to hearsay)
Green v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 85 Ohio App.3d 223 (unsworn/uncertified documents have no evidentiary value on summary judgment)