Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Sopp
62 N.E.3d 863
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2006 Sopp executed an $85,000 mortgage and note originally to Chase; the note bore allonges transferring/endorsing it in blank in Feb. 2007. Chase assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank in March 2012.
- Deutsche filed a foreclosure complaint in April 2012 after Sopp stopped paying in March 2011; Select Portfolio Servicing later authenticated loan records for Deutsche.
- Sopp (pro se) filed numerous motions and defenses (tender, FDCPA/servicer validation, alleged defects in assignment/PSA compliance, signature/authentication challenges, failure to file lis pendens, tax/transfer issues), many filed after the dispositive-motions deadline.
- At trial the court admitted the note, mortgage, payment history, and notice of default (authenticated by Deutsche’s witness); Sopp testified regarding an alleged tender using international postal money orders and various UCC filings but presented no persuasive evidence that the tender paid the loan.
- The trial court entered judgment in foreclosure for Deutsche; Sopp appealed raising 21 assignments of error, most of which the appellate court found were either waived for not being raised at trial or unsupported by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deutsche) | Defendant's Argument (Sopp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/effect of alleged tender of payment | Tender was not proven; note balance remains due | Sopp contends he tendered full payment (postal money orders, UCC filings, deed transfers) | Tender not established as payment; assignment of error overruled |
| Standing/authority to foreclose (assignment/endorsement/PSA) | Deutsche, as holder of the note endorsed in blank and possessor of original note, had standing to foreclose | Sopp argued improper assignment, PSA violations, Deutsche is a third‑party collector or trust without right to foreclose | Possession of endorsed-in-blank note confers enforceable holder status; PSA compliance irrelevant to holder standing |
| Preservation/waiver of defenses and timeliness of motions | Many defenses were untimely, filed after dispositive-motions deadline; issues not raised at trial are waived | Sopp asserted many statutory/contractual defenses in late motions and requests for judicial notice | Court properly denied late motions; appellate review finds waiver/no plain error for issues not tried |
| Authentication/signature of note and admissibility of loan documents | Deutsche authenticated originals via witness; note and mortgage admissible | Sopp disputed signatures and authenticity | Sopp failed to timely deny signatures or present rebuttal evidence; signatures presumed genuine; exhibits properly admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App.2d 223 (8th Dist. 1978) (signature on instrument presumed authentic absent specific denial; burden to rebut falls on party denying signature)