Bank of New York Mellon v. Adams
2013 Ohio 5572
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Bank of New York Mellon brought suit against Randy and Renee Adams to collect on a promissory note and foreclose a mortgage, alleging possession of a note endorsed in blank, making it a holder and real party in interest.
- Adams did not answer, resulting in a default judgment for the bank; Adams sought relief from judgment and appealed from the default prior to court ruling; the court proceeded on accelerated calendar.
- Appellate issues raised: standing to sue, finality of the sale order given unascertainable property protection expenses, and whether the court properly adopted a magistrate’s decision.
- Bank maintained standing as holder of the note and no need to prove trustee status for CWABS, Inc.; status as holder entitled it to enforce the note under R.C. 1303.01(B).
- Court relied on case law establishing that a holder of a bearer instrument can enforce the note and that unascertainable expenses do not preclude finality of foreclose judgments, with future ability to contest at sheriff’s sale or on new appeal.
- Adams forfeited a challenge to the magistrate’s decision by not objecting under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b); no plain error shown regarding adoption of the magistrate’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue in foreclosure | Adams argues bank lacked standing | Adams contends bank must prove trustee status | Bank had standing as holder of the note |
| Finality of judgment with unascertainable expenses | Unascertainable property protection costs impact finality | Expenses not yet ascertainable delay finality | Unascertainable expenses do not bar final judgment; proceed with sheriff’s sale; appeal possible later |
| Adoption of magistrate’s decision | (Not specified separately) | Adams objected to adoption | Adams forfeited right to challenge by not objecting; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Hentley, 2013-Ohio-3150 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99252) (holding holder of note can enforce as real party in interest)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 2013-Ohio-347 (Ohio Supreme Court) (whether final foreclosure order includes unascertainable expenses; Roznowski guidance cited)
- LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-4040 (7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 CA 85) (unascertainable expenses can be addressed at sheriff’s sale; does not defeat finality)
- Third Fed. S. & L. Assn. of Cleveland v. Farno, 2012-Ohio-5245 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-04-028) (support for finality despite unascertainable expenses)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Rankin, 2013-Ohio-2774 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-808) (unascertainable expenses and final judgment precedent)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 134 Ohio St.3d 1447 (Ohio 2013) (supreme court reference on finality and expenses)