Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Salahuddin, 2014 Ohio 3304

In May 2005, Salahuddin signed a promissory note for $75,000 payable to Fifth Third Mortgage Company.
A mortgage on Salahuddin's property at 2743 Mellowbrook Street was granted to Fifth Third to secure the note.
In December 2012, Fifth Third filed a foreclosure complaint alleging default and demand for the debt and mortgage foreclosure.
Fifth Third moved for summary judgment on May 21, 2013; Salahuddin did not respond; trial court granted the motion on June 12, 2013.
Prior to final judgment, Salahuddin requested mediation; the court granted the request despite the summary judgment ruling.
A mediation report on September 17, 2013 found no settlement; Salahuddin later sought additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper given genuine issues of material fact	Fifth Third established standing and lack of material facts for trial	Salahuddin contends issues exist on holder status and other defenses	No genuine issues; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Salahuddin was afforded a full and fair opportunity to discovery	Discovery was available but not required for entry of summary judgment	Rules 56(F) rights to discovery were not properly considered	Civ.R. 56(F) not satisfied; no reversible error

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party bears initial burden to show no genuine issue)
Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) ( Civ.R.56 burden-shifting framework; recourse to Civ.R.56(E))
Paasewe v. Wendy Thomas 5 L.L.C., 2009-Ohio-6852 (Ohio App. Dist.) ( appellate record limits; cannot consider post-judgment evidence)
Ishmail v. State, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (Ohio 1978) (record must be from trial proceedings; cannot rely on new matter on appeal)
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 217 (Ohio App.1st Dist. 1983) (timeliness and discovery considerations under Civ.R.56)