2016 Ohio 185
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2007 Augustus Woods executed a $126,900 adjustable-rate note and mortgage on 51 Kuder Ave., Akron; the note was ultimately endorsed to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC and the mortgage assigned to Bayview.
- Augustus Woods died in April 2013; mortgage payments became delinquent as of the June 1, 2013 payment.
- Bayview sent a notice of default/intent to accelerate in August 2013, and filed a foreclosure complaint in January 2014; it later amended to add Derrick (Derrick/Derrick spelled Derick/Derrick in filings) Woods and Shannon Woods as defendants.
- Bayview moved for default judgment against several defendants and for summary judgment against Derrick Woods; Woods did not oppose the summary-judgment motion or submit Civ.R. 56 evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and entered a decree of foreclosure; Derrick Woods appealed pro se raising four assignments of error concerning unpaid taxes, notice of default, and alleged prepayments/loan-document issues.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding Bayview met its initial summary-judgment burden and Woods forfeited/failed to present evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bayview) | Defendant's Argument (Woods) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bayview proved prerequisites for foreclosure (possession/endorsement, recorded mortgage, default, amount due) | Bayview submitted affidavit asserting possession of original note, loan records, assignments, and specified amount due ($38,232.28 plus interest) | Woods disputed factual matters (taxes unpaid, amount owed, and loan-term discrepancies) but presented no opposing evidence | Bayview satisfied its burden; foreclosure prerequisites met and summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether Bayview provided required notice(s) prior to acceleration | Bayview produced a mailed "Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate" as part of its evidence | Woods argued Bayview failed to specifically provide him notice before acceleration | Court held Woods forfeited this claim by not opposing below and cited absence of authority requiring notice to Woods (borrower was Augustus Woods) |
| Whether disputed loan documents/terms (e.g., alleged prepayments) create genuine issues | Bayview relied on business records and attached note/assignments to show entitlement | Woods claimed the loan had been paid ahead and that the loan agreement on record didn’t match his claimed terms; no evidentiary support provided | Court rejected the challenge for lack of opposing evidence and procedural forfeiture; summary judgment stands |
| Whether failure to oppose summary judgment forfeits appellate review of factual claims | Bayview argued Woods’ failure to respond meant no Civ.R. 56 evidence to create genuine issues | Woods failed to respond or develop legal argumentation on appeal | Court enforced forfeiture rule and reviewed de novo but found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (three-part Civ.R. 56(C) summary judgment test)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden; then burden shifts)
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (view evidence in favor of nonmoving party)