Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Carter
2014 Ohio 5193
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Orlando Carter appeals a trial court grant of summary judgment for Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. and denial of his motion to dismiss in a Warren County foreclosure action.
- Deutsche Bank filed foreclosure on a note originally issued March 24, 2006, secured by a mortgage to Long Beach; note indorsed in blank.
- Long Beach indorsed the note in blank in 2009; JPMorgan Chase Bank later advanced as successor and Deutsche Bank acquired the mortgage.
- Carter answered pro se with defenses including standing, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and failure to state a claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on standing after considering Deutsche Bank’s possession of the note and recorded mortgage, and denied Carter’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; court then foreclosed.
- Carter challenged JPMorgan’s involvement and alleged lost original documents; Deutsche Bank produced the note, mortgage, and assignments showing ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment on standing? | Deutsche Bank allegedly lacked standing due to missing original documents. | Carter argued loss of originals and improper chain of title. | No; Deutsche Bank held the note and mortgage and had proper assignment/possession. |
| Does the Ohio Savings Statute bar the action or require dismissal? | Savings statute tolls re-filing if dismissed otherwise than on the merits. | Re-filing within the applicable limitations period is permitted; dismissal was proper only if merits failed. | No error; re-file within statute; savings statute applied correctly. |
| Was the motion to file a third-party complaint against JPMorgan properly denied? | JPMorgan may be liable for mismanagement or loss of documents. | Motion was untimely and independent claims against JPMorgan lacked standing. | Denied; untimely, and Carter lacked standing to challenge JPMorgan’s transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (Ohio 2012) (standing required to invoke jurisdiction; foreclosure actions depend on standing)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Mapp, 2013-Ohio-2968 (Ohio 2013) (standing determined as of filing; creditor must prove interest in note/mortgage)
- M&T Bank v. Johns, 2014-Ohio-1886 (Ohio 2014) (recorded assignment sufficient to show interest in mortgage)
- CitiMortgage v. Davis, 2014-Ohio-3292 (Ohio 2014) (mere speculation does not defeat summary judgment; self-serving affidavits insufficient)
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Bobo, 2014-Ohio-4975 (Ohio 2014) (standing and transfer issues governed by applicable law)