CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Davis
2014 Ohio 3292
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- CitiMortgage, Inc. sued Henk A. and Julie C. Davis in Warren County for foreclosure on their home at 4746 Todds Fork Road, based on a promissory note and mortgage.
- Notes and mortgage chain: Mainstream Mortgage originated the loan; MERS named as mortgagee/nominee; the note was endorsed to ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, then endorsed in blank, with CitiMortgage later taking possession.
- May 23, 2008 assignment: MERS executed an assignment of the mortgage to CitiMortgage, establishing CitiMortgage’s interest prior to the first foreclosure action.
- First foreclosure action occurred in 2008; a judgment and decree were entered but CitiMortgage voluntarily dismissed after Henk Davis signed a loan modification.
- Loan modification in 2008 changed the note balance and payment terms but did not alter CitiMortgage’s mortgage interest status.
- CitiMortgage filed a new foreclosure in 2012; the trial court granted summary judgment to CitiMortgage after considering affidavits confirming possession of the note and the allonge attachment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CitiMortgage had standing to foreclose | CitiMortgage had a mortgage interest via May 23, 2008 assignment and was the holder of the note. | Davis argued CitiMortgage lacked standing because it did not prove ownership of the note/mortgage and that the loan modification affected ownership | CitiMortgage had standing; trial court did not err |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | CitiMortgage showed no genuine factual dispute; in possession of note, default, and proper mortgage chain established. | Davis relied on speculation; challenged sufficiency of evidence about the allonge | Summary judgment for CitiMortgage affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (standing determined as of filing; foreclosure jurisdiction requires standing at filing)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Blouse, 2013-Ohio-4537 (12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2013-02-002) (standing inquiry; preliminary determination of standing)
- Fifth Third Mortgage Co. v. Bell, 2013-Ohio-3678 (12th Dist. Madison No. CA2013-02-003) (standing/summary-judgment standards in foreclosures)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Eten, 2014-Ohio-987 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-05-087) (standing requires interest in note or mortgage at filing)
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Urbanski, 2014-Ohio-2362 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-520) (mere speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Mitchell, 2012-Ohio-3732 (6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-10-043) (attachment of allonge as part of instrument; enforceability of note)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Sexton, 2010-Ohio-4802 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-11-288) (standing requires interest in note or mortgage)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Jackson, 2014-Ohio-2480 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-01-018) (definition of who may enforce an instrument)