Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Finney
2013 Ohio 4884
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Deutsche Bank filed foreclosure action against Bradley and Michele Finney in Sept 2008, alleging February 2005 promissory note and mortgage, default, and ownership/servicing by Deutsche Bank, which claimed the note could not be located.
- Mortgage named Aames Funding Corporation as the mortgagee; Deutsche Bank asserted authority to enforce the mortgage and sought monetary damages plus foreclosure and sale of the property.
- Appellants were served in Sept 2008 but did not timely answer; Deutsche Bank moved for default judgment Oct 2008, submitting an affidavit with copies of purported original note and mortgage showing Aames as lender.
- Trial court entered default judgment on Nov 18, 2008, and scheduled a sheriff's sale for March 13, 2009, which Deutsche Bank moved to vacate the same day; the court granted the motion.
- Deutsche Bank repeatedly attempted to sell the property (Sept 2009, Nov 2009, Mar 2010, Jan 2012) but sales were stayed due to requests or appellants’ actions, including bankruptcy filings.
- In Dec 2012, appellants moved for relief from judgment under common law/Civ.R. 60(B)(5), citing Schwartzwald; in Feb 2013 the trial court denied relief and a stay; sheriff's sale occurred March 1, 2013, and a subsequent sale was confirmed April 17, 2013; appellants timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of standing voids the default judgment ab initio | Deutsche Bank argues lack of standing does not defeat subject-matter jurisdiction and lacks authority to vacate if judgment is not void. | Finneys contend lack of standing makes the judgment void ab initio and subject to inherent vacatur. | Lack of standing does not deprive subject-matter jurisdiction; judgment not void; first assignment overruled. |
| Whether the sheriff's sale confirmation violated Local Rule 25.01 by lack of notice | Deutsche Bank contends sale was properly noticed and the confirmation complied with statute and rule. | Finneys argue lack of pre-confirmation notice to counsel violated Loc.R. 25.01. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; sale confirmation proper; second assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988) (inherent power to vacate void judgments; not Civ.R. 60(B))
- Freedom Mortgage Corp. v. Mullins, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-761, 2009-Ohio-4482 (2010) (judgment without subject-matter jurisdiction is void ab initio)
- Botts, 2012-Ohio-5383 (10th Dist.) (lack of standing does not deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Whiteman, 2013-Ohio-1636 (10th Dist.) (lack of standing not jurisdictional defect; voidable not void)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (third category of jurisdiction; void only if lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Schwartzwald, 2012-Ohio-5017 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (analyzed standing and jurisdiction in foreclosure; impact on void vs voidable judgments)
- Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648 (2005) (justiciability vs subject-matter jurisdiction; real controversy requirement)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brandle, 2012-Ohio-3492 (2d Dist.) (standing not depriving jurisdiction; related analysis cited)
- Washington Mutual Bank v. Beatley, 2008-Ohio-1679 (10th Dist.) (standing not jurisdictional defect; foreclosure cases)