Bank of New York Mellon v. Uballe
2017 Ohio 7978
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2001 Uballe purchased residential property and executed a promissory note ($166,500) and mortgage in favor of Pacific Guarantee, with MERS as nominee; the mortgage was recorded in 2002.
- Uballe defaulted in August 2010; MERS assigned the mortgage to Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), and BNYM filed a foreclosure complaint in 2012 seeking only in rem relief (borrower’s personal obligation was discharged in bankruptcy).
- BNYM moved for summary judgment in October 2012; Uballe obtained an extension but did not file an opposition, and the trial court entered judgment and decree in foreclosure on May 2, 2013.
- BNYM later moved to reopen to add the IRS as a junior lienholder; the court permitted that and BNYM subsequently dismissed the IRS from the action.
- Uballe filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (July 2014) asserting lack of standing by BNYM, newly discovered securitization/audit evidence, fraud/chain-of-title defects, and equitable grounds (Civ.R. 60(B)(5)); the trial court denied relief as untimely or based on public-record matters.
- On appeal, Uballe challenged only the trial court’s denial under Civ.R. 60(B)(5); the Sixth District affirmed, concluding Uballe had a meritorious defense but failed to show why the issue could not have been raised before entry of judgment and thus failed the GTE test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief was warranted to vacate foreclosure judgment based on alleged post-judgment title/standing defects | BNYM: judgment valid; assignment to BNYM preceded the complaint; title defects Uballe cites were public record and not newly discovered | Uballe: BNYM lacked standing; securitization audit and title defects discovered after judgment justify relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) | Court: Denied relief. Although Uballe had a meritorious defense, he failed to show excuse for not raising the issues before judgment; Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is not a substitute for other rule grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 1988) (a trial court may overrule a Civ.R. 60(B) motion if any GTE requirement is unmet)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64, 448 N.E.2d 1365 (Ohio 1983) (scope and limits of Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief)
- Eubank v. Anderson, 119 Ohio St.3d 349, 894 N.E.2d 48 (Ohio 2008) (standard of review for Civ.R. 60(B) motions is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)