Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. St. Cyr, 2017 Ohio 2758

Background

In 2008 St. Cyr took a mortgage-secured loan and executed a note for $106,575; the mortgage was originally recorded in favor of MERS as nominee for Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. Assignments later transferred the mortgage through BAC/Bank of America to HUD and then to Bayview, the servicer and plaintiff here.
Bayview filed a foreclosure complaint in July 2015 alleging default, acceleration, possession of the note, and entitlement to foreclose; St. Cyr initially failed to answer but was later permitted to file an answer and engaged in discovery.
St. Cyr served requests for admissions; Bayview’s responses were filed after the discovery cutoff and after the court denied an extension, creating deemed admissions for some requests. Bayview moved to withdraw/amend those deemed admissions and disputed them in opposing summary judgment.
St. Cyr moved for summary judgment relying principally on the deemed admissions to argue Bayview lacked any legal interest, standing, or entitlement to foreclosure. Bayview moved for summary judgment supported by an affidavit and copies of the note (endorsed in blank), assignments, and a payment history.
The trial court granted Bayview’s motion for summary judgment and denied St. Cyr’s; the court of appeals affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting withdrawal of deemed admissions and that Bayview established standing and the amount due.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were plaintiff’s late discovery responses/deemed admissions binding?	Bayview: responses were timely-effectively served after agreed extensions; withdrawal should be allowed under Civ.R. 36(B) to decide merits.	St. Cyr: Bayview’s late responses are deemed admitted, conclusively establishing facts against Bayview.	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; deemed admissions were permissibly withdrawn/amended under Civ.R. 36(B).
Did Bayview have standing/real-party-in-interest to enforce the note and foreclose?	Bayview: produced the original note endorsed in blank and assignments; possession of blank-endorsed note makes it the holder and entitled to enforce the note (mortgage follows the note).	St. Cyr: challenged authenticity of endorsement/assignments and asserted Bayview had no legal interest.	Court: Bayview showed possession of the note endorsed in blank and assignments; it had standing as holder and could enforce the note; mortgagor lacks standing to challenge assignments.
Was the affidavit and documentary evidence sufficient for summary judgment?	Bayview: affidavit from a records custodian (Jackson) attested to personal knowledge, authenticity of records (note, assignments, payment history), satisfying Civ.R. 56(E).	St. Cyr: attacked credibility and sufficiency of the affidavit and documents as inadequate to prove holder status and amounts due.	Court: Jackson’s affidavit met Civ.R. 56(E); St. Cyr provided no contrary evidence; documents were proper summary judgment materials.
Did Bayview prove default and the amount due?	Bayview: supplied authenticated payment history and notices establishing default and $104,717.43 (with interest).	St. Cyr: argued payment history and damages were unsupported and unreliable.	Court: Bayview’s authenticated records established default and the amount due; summary judgment was appropriate.

Key Cases Cited

Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 364 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment standard)
Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s burden in summary judgment)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review of summary judgment)
Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 767 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 2002) (definition of personal knowledge for affidavits)
Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 979 N.E.2d 1214 (Ohio 2012) (standing as holder or assignee for foreclosure)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Marcino, 908 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio App. 2009) (note negotiation operates as equitable assignment of mortgage)