Glazer v. Chase Home Fin., L.L.C.
2013 Ohio 5589
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Lawrence Glazer acquired title to 2498 Bristol Road (Ohio) in July 2008 while a foreclosure by Chase (servicer) and Reimer Firm was already pending; Glazer alleged defendants misrepresented ownership of the promissory note and filed fraudulent foreclosure paperwork.
- Glazer sued in Ohio state court (putative class and individual claims) asserting OCSPA violations, R.C. 1319.12, fraud (intentional/negligent/concealment), conspiracy, and trespass; First American and others were named.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court granted dismissal and denied leave to amend; remaining Doe/Smith claims were later dismissed for failure to prosecute and the court entered Civ.R. 54(B) certifications.
- Glazer had earlier litigated related federal claims; the Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding foreclosure can be debt collection under the FDCPA (Glazer II), reinstating some state claims in federal court, but the district court declined to reexamine state claims already litigated in state court.
- On appeal in Ohio, the court reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal: OCSPA claim failed because Glazer was not in a "consumer transaction;" R.C. 1319.12 provides no private cause of action; fraud/concealment/conspiracy claims failed for lack of pleaded justifiable reliance or sufficient underlying unlawful act; denial of leave to amend and denial of Civ.R. 60(B)(4) relief were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court improperly considered outside material or converted 12(B)(6) to summary judgment | Glazer: court relied on materials outside complaint (e.g., federal filings) and denied discovery/time to respond | Defendants: documents were incorporated by complaint or jurisdictionally relevant; no conversion occurred | Court: no improper conversion; any consideration of outside materials was permissible or harmless; assignment overruled |
| Whether OCSPA applies / standing as a consumer transaction | Glazer: defendants’ foreclosure/collection conduct constituted consumer transaction and defendants were suppliers | Defendants: foreclosure/default servicing is a "pure" real-estate/collateral service, not a consumer transaction; defendants are not suppliers | Court: OCSPA does not cover these actions as a consumer transaction here; Glazer not a consumer re: this transaction; OCSPA claim dismissed |
| Whether R.C. 1319.12 creates a private cause of action against Chase | Glazer: statute governs collection agencies and therefore permits suit against Chase | Chase: statute regulates collection agencies and contains no private right of action | Court: no private right is implied; R.C. 1319.12 does not create a private cause of action; claim dismissed |
| Whether fraud/concealment/conspiracy were sufficiently pleaded (justifiable reliance/underlying unlawful act) | Glazer: alleged concealment that Chase did not own the note and that he relied on defendants in estate/property actions | Defendants: Glazer contested Chase’s standing in foreclosure and alleged no specific acts showing justifiable reliance or resulting injury; conspiracy needs independent unlawful act | Court: complaint lacks facts showing justifiable reliance or proximate injury; underlying unlawful acts not established; fraud and conspiracy claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim, not just conceivable)
- Glazer v. Chase Home Fin., L.L.C., 704 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2013) (mortgage foreclosure can be debt collection under the FDCPA)
- Anderson v. Barclay’s Capital Real Estate, Inc., 989 N.E.2d 997 (Ohio 2013) (OCSPA does not apply to pure real-estate transactions; mortgage servicers are not suppliers)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (Civ.R. 60(B) standards for relief from judgment)
- Groob v. Key Bank, 843 N.E.2d 1170 (Ohio 2006) (elements required for actionable fraud)