2022 Ohio 3684
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2018 Buckley requested termination of private mortgage insurance (PMI); Croghan Colonial Bank obtained an independent appraisal to evaluate the request.
- Buckley alleges the appraisal was defective because two of three comparable properties were in a different school district, and she asked the bank to correct it.
- Buckley says the bank relied on the allegedly defective appraisal to deny PMI termination; she paid $6,124.80 in PMI and $460 for the appraisal and sued for damages ($6,000).
- Croghan moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing it had no legal duty to correct an independent appraiser’s report and that 15 U.S.C. §1639e forbids lender interference.
- The trial court treated Buckley’s factual allegations as true, found §1639e permissive (not imposing a duty), rejected reliance on bank website language, and dismissed for failure to allege a legal duty.
- The Sixth District affirmed, holding the complaint failed to state a claim because it did not plead a legal duty owed by the bank to correct the appraisal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bank owed a legal duty to correct or cause correction of an independent appraisal | Buckley: bank had duty to correct appraisal (via 15 U.S.C. §1639e, customer-duty, marketing statements, and general duty of ordinary care/good faith) | Croghan: no duty to correct; §1639e permits parties to request corrections but does not impose a lender duty; appraiser/ appraisal company control report corrections | Court: Dismissal affirmed — complaint fails to plead a legal duty. §1639e is permissive, website statements not considered on 12(B)(6), and generic duty of care does not create the specific duty alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 532 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1988) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12[B][6]—must appear beyond doubt plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)
- State ex rel. Martre v. Reed, 161 Ohio St.3d 281, 162 N.E.3d 773 (Ohio 2020) (unsupported legal conclusions need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 814 N.E.2d 44 (Ohio 2004) (appellate review of 12[B][6] dismissal is de novo)
- Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573, 613 N.E.2d 1014 (Ohio 1993) (definition of legal duty in Ohio negligence law)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 605 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio 1992) (procedural posture and standards for Civ.R. 12[B][6] motions)
- Assn. for the Defense of the Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116, 537 N.E.2d 1292 (Ohio 1989) (procedural authority cited on Rule 12[B][6])
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 680 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio 1997) (courts may not consider matters outside the complaint on a 12[B][6] review)