Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Johnson, 2013 Ohio 4661

Appellants borrowed $312,000 in 2006, secured by a mortgage on 11193 Palmer Road Southwest, Pataskala, Ohio, with MERS as nominee for First Franklin.
The note and mortgage permit notice and cure before acceleration and specify acceleration after default if not cured.
Mortgage provides notice mechanics and that notice is effective upon mailing.
First Franklin assigned the note and mortgage through endorsements and MERS’s role; MERS assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank on May 9, 2012.
Appellants fell behind on payments; default notices were allegedly sent February 4, 2010, with a cure deadline and acceleration warnings.
Foreclosure action was filed June 6, 2012; trial court granted summary judgment for Deutsche Bank on November 20, 2012; appellate appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice of default and acceleration complied with the note and mortgage terms	Johnsons contend no proper notice was shown	Deutsche Bank argues notices D and E satisfied content requirements and were effective upon mailing	Yes; notices complied and were effective upon mailing

First Financial Bank v. Doellman, 12th Dist. No. CA2006–02–029, 2007-Ohio-222 (12th Dist. 2007) (case on evidentiary sufficiency for default notices in mortgage foreclosures)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Loncar, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 174, 2013-Ohio-2959 (7th Dist. 2013) (support for notice-of-default sufficiency where affidavits reference attached notices)
R.B.S. Citizens v. Adams, 3rd Dist. Seneca No. 13-11-35, 2012-Ohio-1889 (3rd Dist. 2012) (affirms notice-compliance analysis in mortgage foreclosures)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Shalvey, No. 06CAE090060, 2007-Ohio-3928 (5th Dist. 2007) (notice of default not submitted with motion; factors for authenticity discussed)
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 1996 (Ohio 1996) (Civ.R.56 standards reaffirmed for summary judgment)