Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Brown
2012 Ohio 2205
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Fifth Third Mortgage Company sued Margaret Brown in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for foreclosure and monetary judgment on a promissory note, asserting a mortgage on 3290 East 140th Street, Cleveland, OH 44120 and alleging default.
- Fifth Third sought a monetary judgment on the note, foreclosure of the mortgage, and reformation of the quit-claim deed and mortgage deed due to allegedly incorrect property descriptions.
- Brown answered denying default and disputing escrow calculations but did not contest the mortgage’s validity.
- The trial court denied Fifth Third’s summary-judgment motion; the case proceeded to trial before a court magistrate who found Brown in default and favored Fifth Third on monetary claims but favored Brown on reformation and foreclosure due to alleged description defects and lack of present interest.
- The magistrate concluded Fifth Third failed to pursue reformation at trial, and that the description deficiencies rendered the foreclosure claim defective, leading the trial court to adopt the magistrate’s decision and deny foreclosure.
- On appeal, Fifth Third argued multiple points including mortgage sufficiency, that reformation was not required to foreclose, and that evidence supported the parties’ intent to encumber the subject property; the court of appeals agreed in part, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reformation was proper given the evidence | Fifth Third argues reformation was supported by mutual mistake evidenced in the deed descriptions | Brown contends reformation was not proven and trial court properly denied it | Reformation denied; not proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Fifth Third's mortgage adequately encumbers the property despite description gaps | Mortgage includes correct address and parcel number and suffices under Ohio law | Any missing volume of plat map renders description insufficient | Mortgage valid and enforceable despite missing plat-map volume |
| Whether a present interest in the property was shown to support foreclosure | Fifth Third demonstrated a present interest in the encumbered property | Foreclosure cannot proceed absent evidence of a present interest | Foreclosure proper; Fifth Third has an interest to foreclose |
| Whether Fifth Third forfeited foreclosure rights by not pursuing reformation at trial | Reformation was pleaded and should not bar foreclosure for lack of trial proof | Plaintiff failed to pursue reformation at trial, prejudicing its foreclosure claim | Remanded with foreclosure reinstated; reformation not required to foreclose |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bunn, 578 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2009) (mortgage description sufficiency; substantial compliance acceptable)
- ABN AMRO Mtge. Group, Inc. v. Jackson, 159 Ohio App.3d 551 (2d Dist. 2005) (description need not be formal metes and bounds; parcel number suffices)
- Roebuck v. Columbia Gas Transm. Corp., 57 Ohio App.2d 217 (2d Dist. 1977) (description must enable locating the land conveyed)
- Delfino v. Paul Davies Chevrolet, Inc., 2 Ohio St.2d 282 (1965) (reformation available to align writing with real agreement)
- Wagner v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 132 Ohio St.405 (1937) (reformation requires mutual mistake with valid instrument)
- Bellish v. C.I.T. Corp., 142 Ohio St.36 (1937) (reformation standards; clear and convincing evidence required)
- G.M.A.C. Mortgage Corp. v. McElroy, 5th Dist. No. 2004-CA-00380 (2005) (recorded mortgage may be sufficient even without plat volume)