Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Wizzard, 2013 Ohio 3084

Wizzard executed a $185,000 promissory note and mortgage on 2/7/2005 securing Ridge Meadow property.
Title to the Ridge Meadow property was transferred to Wizzard as trustee of the Reid-Wizzard Family Trust in 2006.
Fifth Third Mortgage Company filed foreclosure on 12/7/2011, alleging default and a first lien on the property.
Fifth Third sought a foreclosure decree after alleging a balance of $171,584.16 plus interest at 6%.
Wizzard defended, asserting the mortgage was not properly executed/acknowledged and that notice and cure rights were not provided.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Fifth Third on 7/17/2012; Wizzard appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the mortgage properly executed and acknowledged?	Fifth Third argues the mortgage was properly notarized and enforceable.	Wizzard contends the mortgage was defectively executed due to notary absence at signing/closing.	No genuine issue; mortgage properly executed; summary judgment upheld.
Did Fifth Third provide proper notice and opportunity to cure prior to acceleration?	Fifth Third mailed a valid default notice; notice satisfied contractual terms.	Wizzard contends she did not receive the notice or cure opportunity.	Notice satisfied; deemed given by mailing; acceleration/foreclosure proper.
Is the appeal proper despite missing transcript of the summary-judgment hearing?	Record adequacy allows de novo review of summary-judgment issues.	Record incompleteness could undermine appellate review.	Appeal not dismissed; court reviews merits de novo with the record before it.

Grizinski v. Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc., 187 Ohio App.3d 393 (2010-Ohio-1945) (de novo review of summary judgment standard; arbiter of material facts)
Hillstreet Fund III, L.P. v. Bloom, 2010-Ohio-2961 (12th Dist.) (affidavits must be corroborated to create material facts)
Weber, 2012-Ohio-6024 (10th Dist. Franklin) (notice provisions may be satisfied by notice mailed; mailbox rule limits)