Christiana Trust v. Barth
2017 Ohio 6924
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- 2002 promissory note signed by Carmen J. Barth; mortgage on the property signed by Carmen, Carol, and Valerie Barth. CitiFinancial (successor CitiMortgage) was original mortgagee.
- CitiMortgage assigned the mortgage to Christiana Trust in August 2013; servicers changed from Carrington to Selene Finance before suit.
- Christiana Trust filed a foreclosure complaint in July 2014; bench trial before a magistrate in 2016 resulted in a foreclosure judgment adopted by the trial court in May 2016.
- Valerie Barth appealed, raising two errors: (1) admission of unauthenticated/hearsay records (including payment history) and (2) that an allonge must be permanently affixed to the note.
- Trial evidence: original note and allonge in plaintiff’s possession, certified mortgage and assignment, corporate resolution, and a payment history (Plaintiff’s Ex. 5) authenticated at trial by Selene case manager Eric Wheeler; no contrary evidence presented by Barth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of note, mortgage, assignment, corporate resolution, and payment history | Documents were properly authenticated and admissible; business records exception applies to payment history | Records were unauthenticated hearsay and not admissible under business‑records exception; witness lacked requisite personal knowledge | Court: documents self‑authenticated where applicable; Wheeler’s testimony sufficed to authenticate business records under Evid.R. 803(6)/901(B)(10); admission not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice to Barth |
| Enforceability re: allonge attachment | Plaintiff: allonge need only be "affixed" to be part of the instrument; permanent attachment not required | Barth: allonge not permanently affixed (paperclip), so not part of note; therefore plaintiff not entitled to enforce | Court: Ohio law requires a paper be "affixed" but imposes no permanency requirement; paperclip sufficient in context; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (trial court has broad discretion on admission of evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate review limited; cannot substitute judgment)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (standard for admissibility review)
- Weis v. Weis, 147 Ohio St. 416 (business‑records rationale: regular course of business and trustworthiness)
- Merrick v. Ditzler, 91 Ohio St. 256 (plaintiff’s burden in foreclosure is preponderance of evidence)