First Fin. Bank, FSB v. Doellman
2013 Ohio 1383
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- First Financial Bank, FSB foreclosed after assigning the note and mortgage to U.S. Bank, N.A.
- Trial court entered judgment of foreclosure; this court later remanded for trial on remaining issues.
- Magistrate found U.S. Bank entitled to foreclose for default and that notice of default was properly provided.
- May 5, 2004 demand letter was mailed to the Doellmans at the property address; certified mail unclaimed, ordinary mail also used.
- Doellmans testified they never received the May 5 letter; the trial court credited credibility to the bank’s evidence that mailing created a presumption of receipt via ordinary mail.
- Doellmans argued they attempted to cure and offered money after the cure period; court concluded no timely cure and accelerated the loan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a required notice of default actually received? | Bank mailed a proper default notice with 30-day cure period; ordinary mail creates presumptive receipt. | Doellmans did not receive the May 5, 2004 notice; mailing alone cannot prove actual receipt. | No reversible error; presumption supported by ordinary-mail delivery; not clearly against weight of the evidence. |
| Did Doellmans have a timely opportunity to cure before acceleration and foreclosure? | Doellmans failed to cure within the cure period and later payments were insufficient to bring current. | Doellmans attempted to cure with $4,000 and additional payments but Bank refused because cure was past due. | No reversible error; court found Doellmans failed to cure and Bank accelerated per the note and mortgage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantrell v. Celotex Corp., 105 Ohio App.3d 90 (Ohio App. Dist. 1st Dist.1995) (rebuttable mailbox rule; receipt can be presumed from mailing)
- Wilborn v. Bank One Corp., 2009-Ohio-306 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009) (consideration of amounts owed including enforcement costs in curing default)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012-Ohio-2179) (standard for manifest-weight review; deference to trial court findings)
