Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Unger
2012 Ohio 1950
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Mellon filed a foreclosure action in 2009 alleging default on a note secured by a mortgage on Unger property; note and mortgage were initially held by SouthStar and later assigned to Mellon via MERS as nominee.
- Exhibits attached to Mellon’s complaint included the note, two allonges, the mortgage, and an Assignment of Mortgage showing transfers from MERS/SouthStar to Bank of New York and then to Mellon; a Preliminary Judicial Report noted a MERS lien on Schedule B.
- Unger answered with counterclaims for declaratory judgment and damages, asserting the note and mortgage were not properly negotiated and that SouthStar remains holder; sought to quiet title and challenge the cloud created by allegedly fraudulent assignments.
- Ungers moved for in camera inspection to obtain the original allonge; the court ordered production, and Mellon produced the original note for inspection.
- In 2010 the court ordered Mellon to show cause why the foreclosure should not be dismissed; Mellon did not prosecute, and the foreclosure complaint was dismissed; the case proceeded on Unger counterclaims.
- Mellon moved for summary judgment in 2011; Ungers moved for summary judgment seeking to strike the assignments and original mortgage as creating a cloud; the trial court granted Mellon’s summary judgment and struck the Ungers’ attachments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge mortgage assignments | Unger lacks standing because they are not parties to the assignments. | Unger has rights to challenge cloud on title arising from fraudulent assignments. | Ungers lacked standing; affirmed summary judgment in Mellon’s favor. |
| Quiet title against mortgage assignments | Assignments create a cloud; Ungers may quiet title if assignments are invalid. | They are not parties to the PSA or assignments and thus cannot quiet title. | No quiet title remedy; assignments not a cloud on title; affirmed. |
| Admissibility of attachments to summary judgment motion | Attachments not properly authenticated should be disregarded. | Attachments are admissible evidence of record facts. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in striking attachments lacking proper authentication. |
Key Cases Cited
- GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. McElroy, 2005-Ohio-2387 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (mortgage lien validity and standing considerations)
- Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. v. Heft, 2012-Ohio-876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) (standing and quiet title considerations in mortgage challenges)
- Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Schwartz, 8th Dist. No. 96641, 2012-Ohio-917 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) (standing to challenge mortgage assignments; injuries required)