Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co. v. Shaffer
2013 Ohio 3205
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On June 8, 2009 The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A. (New York Mellon) filed a foreclosure complaint against Theresa Shaffer asserting it was “the holder of a note” by assignment; the complaint attached the mortgage showing Wilmington Finance as lender but did not attach the note.
- New York Mellon recorded an assignment of the mortgage on June 22, 2009 — fourteen days after the complaint was filed — and later filed an affidavit stating it held the note by assignment.
- Shaffer failed to file a timely answer; the trial court entered a default judgment of foreclosure on February 25, 2010. Shaffer later filed an answer and repeatedly challenged New York Mellon’s standing in motions and on summary judgment.
- Shaffer moved for relief from judgment on September 26, 2011 claiming lack of plaintiff standing; the trial court denied the motion and this court initially affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court remanded for application of Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schwartzwald.
- On remand this Court held, following Schwartzwald, that standing is jurisdictional and is determined as of the filing date; because the record lacked evidence that New York Mellon held the note or mortgage on June 8, 2009, the court concluded there was no standing and the foreclosure judgment was void and must be dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York Mellon had standing to sue at the time the complaint was filed | Complaint alleged Mellon was “holder of the note” by assignment; pleadings suffice to invoke jurisdiction | Mellon lacked the note/mortgage on filing (assignment recorded after filing) so no standing | Held: Standing is jurisdictional and must exist when complaint is filed; record does not show Mellon held note or mortgage on filing; no standing |
| Whether subsequent assignment or recording after filing cures lack of standing and whether a default judgment is voidable or void | Later assignment/recording cures any prior defect; default judgment final and Shaffer should have appealed; Civ.R. 60(B) governs relief | Post-filing assignment cannot cure jurisdictional defect; a judgment entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void and may be vacated anytime (no Civ.R. 60(B) timing requirement) | Held: Subsequent events cannot confer standing; absence of standing means case not justiciable, trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, judgment void and must be dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (Ohio 2012) (standing is jurisdictional and is determined as of the filing of the complaint)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time)
- Fox v. Eaton Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 236 (Ohio 1976) (parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (default judgment is a final adjudication of rights)
- State v. Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d 230 (Ohio 1999) (distinguishing lack of jurisdiction over subject matter from errors in exercise of jurisdiction)