Bank of New York Mellon v. Walker
2017 Ohio 535
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Phenon Walker executed a $975,000 note secured by a mortgage on 13880 Edgewater Drive; Whole Sailing, LLC later held title. Bank of New York Mellon (Bank of New York) sued for foreclosure in April 2013, alleging Walker defaulted as of June 1, 2004.
- Bank of New York produced the note, mortgage, and recorded assignments showing chain of title to it; it also submitted a November 26, 2012 notice of default/possible acceleration.
- Appellants moved to dismiss and later for summary judgment arguing the note claim was time‑barred; the magistrate and trial court granted summary judgment to Bank of New York on the note and mortgage claims after procedural back‑and‑forth and an opportunity to respond.
- On appeal appellants argued (1) statute of limitations barred the note action, (2) Bank of New York lacked standing to foreclose, and (3) Bank of New York failed to satisfy conditions precedent to foreclose.
- The appellate court found appellants had submitted an affidavit attaching certified prior foreclosure complaints that suggested earlier accelerations, creating a material factual dispute on the note’s acceleration date — so summary judgment on the note claim was erroneous.
- The court held, however, that even if the note claim is time‑barred, Bank of New York may still enforce the mortgage under the longer limitations period for specialties (per Holden), and the record showed sufficient chain of assignments and satisfaction of conditions precedent for mortgage foreclosure; it affirmed foreclosure on the mortgage, reversed judgment on the note, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability and accrual of statute of limitations on the note | Note is enforceable; acceleration occurred via November 26, 2012 notice so 6‑year UCC limitations applies | Acceleration may have occurred earlier (prior foreclosures); action on note is time‑barred | Material factual dispute exists about acceleration date; summary judgment on the note was erroneous |
| Ability to foreclose if note is time‑barred | Bank of New York can still foreclose mortgage and pursue remedies under longer specialty limitations | If note barred, mortgage cannot be enforced (traditional rule) | Following Holden, mortgage remedies survive a barred note; foreclosure on mortgage may proceed |
| Standing to enforce mortgage | Bank of New York produced recorded assignments showing it is party entitled to enforce | Appellants challenged standing (chain/authority) | Under plain‑error review, recorded assignments facially establish standing; standing sustained |
| Satisfaction of conditions precedent (demand/notice) | Affidavit and attached demand/notice (Nov. 26, 2012) show demand sent and default persisted | Affidavit lacked mailing proof and detail per Vengal | Demand affidavit and notice were sufficient on the record; no plain error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (standard for summary judgment)
- Fish v. Bd. of Commrs., 13 Ohio St.2d 99 (Ohio 1968) (judicial estoppel prevents inconsistent positions in successive proceedings)
- Kerr v. Lydecker, 51 Ohio St. 240 (Ohio 1894) (distinguishing actions on note and mortgage; historical rule on mortgage barred with note)
- Bradfield v. Hale, 67 Ohio St. 316 (Ohio 1902) (ejectment and remedies under mortgage governed by different limitations)
- Holden, Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Holden, 60 N.E.3d 1243 (Ohio 2016) (mortgage remedies may survive when action on the note is barred)