CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Guarnieri
2013 Ohio 4913
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In April 2008 William Guarnieri executed a $135,000 note secured by a mortgage in favor of Ohio U.S. Mortgage Corp.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) was the mortgagee of record.
- Guarnieri defaulted in December 2008; MERS assigned the mortgage to CitiMortgage on September 14, 2009 (recorded Sept. 18, 2009).
- CitiMortgage filed foreclosure and note-collection suit September 22, 2009 and attached the note (with an allonge bearing a specific endorsement from Ohio U.S. Mortgage Corp. to CitiMortgage) and the mortgage to its complaint.
- CitiMortgage moved for summary judgment supported by an affidavit from a CitiMortgage foreclosure analyst and documentary evidence (note with endorsed allonge and recorded assignment).
- The magistrate granted summary judgment for CitiMortgage; the trial court adopted that decision. Guarnieri appealed pro se, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of assignment/standing and (2) premature grant of summary judgment while discovery was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CitiMortgage presented evidentiary-quality proof of its right to enforce the note and mortgage | CitiMortgage produced the original instruments, an allonge with a specific endorsement to CitiMortgage, a recorded assignment of the mortgage, and an affidavit attesting to loan records | Guarnieri argued the affidavit did not demonstrate assignment/chain of title and relied on Hufford to argue insufficient proof | Court held the documentary evidence (endorsed allonge + recorded assignment) established CitiMortgage’s status as holder/assignee and entitlement to judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because discovery was incomplete (Civ.R. 56[F]) | CitiMortgage argued it met its summary judgment burden and that Guarnieri did not seek a continuance under Civ.R. 56(F) | Guarnieri argued discovery was pending and he lacked evidence to oppose summary judgment | Court held Guarnieri waived this ground by failing to move under Civ.R. 56(F); summary judgment was proper despite pending discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment reviewed de novo and standard explained)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden of specific facts)
- First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford, 146 Ohio App.3d 673, 767 N.E.2d 1206 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (summary judgment improper where plaintiff presented no clear documentation of transfer of note or mortgage)
- Maschari v. Tone, 103 Ohio St.3d 411, 816 N.E.2d 579 (Ohio 2004) (nonmoving party must move under Civ.R. 56[F] to delay summary judgment for additional discovery)