First Fin. Bank, N.A. v. Mendenhall
2017 Ohio 7628
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mark and Pamela Mendenhall obtained a $675,000 mortgage in 2005; the note was assigned to First Financial Bank, which and a loan modification was executed in 2010.
- The Mendenhalls ceased making regular payments in January 2015; First Financial sent a June 2015 default notice threatening acceleration and filed an in rem foreclosure in July 2015.
- First Financial moved for summary judgment and supported the motion with two affidavits from a bank employee, attached copies of the note, mortgage, assignment, loan modification, and a notice of default; the affidavit stated the balance due was $672,675.30 as of July 29, 2015.
- The Mendenhalls admitted (by failure to respond to requests for admission) their default, the date of default, and that the principal and interest due as of July 29, 2015 was $672,675.30.
- The Mendenhalls argued summary judgment was improper because First Financial did not submit an account/payment history to substantiate the amount due.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for First Financial; the Mendenhalls appealed, and the appeal was reviewed for plain error only because they did not timely object to the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lender must submit an account/payment history to prove amount of principal and interest due on summary judgment in foreclosure | First Financial: not required where borrower admits the amount due; affidavits plus note and modification suffice | Mendenhall: lender must submit an account history or payment history to substantiate amount due | Held: No. An account history is not required where the borrower admits the balance and related facts; summary judgment properly granted |
| Whether lender established date of delinquency and interest rate for amount calculation | First Financial: loan modification and admitted balance give necessary rate and post-default balance | Mendenhall: absence of payment history and precise delinquency date prevents verification of interest and total | Held: Admission of balance and unchallenged loan modification rates made precise delinquency date immaterial; evidence was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary-judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 144 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error review in civil cases to be applied cautiously)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plurality on plain-error standard in civil appeals)
- Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1985) (failure to respond to requests for admission deems facts admitted)