GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C. v. Jacobs
196 Ohio App. 3d 167
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C. filed a foreclosure action against Jacobs on a residence and for judgment on a note.
- Case proceeded after mediation; unresolved disputes led to continued litigation.
- GMAC moved for summary judgment on July 28, 2009; Jacobs sought an extension on August 11, 2009.
- Court granted GMAC summary judgment on August 19, 2009, without ruling on the extension request before the response was due.
- Jacobs' Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment was denied; appeal followed, challenging both extension handling and the summary judgment terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Jacobs an extension to respond to GMAC's motion for summary judgment. | Jacobs argues the extension was timely and justified given the stay and reasons stated. | GMAC contends the court properly managed the docket and denied the extension because the response period lapsed. | Overruled; extension issue deemed harmless due to Civ.R. 60(B) outcome. |
| Whether GMAC was entitled to summary judgment given alleged issues of material fact regarding notice of default and compliance with procedural requirements. | Jacobs contends GMAC failed to provide proper notice of default and failed to follow procedures before judgment. | GMAC presented an affidavit asserting proper notice was sent and that procedures were satisfied; Jacobs did notcounter with evidence. | Summary judgment affirmed for GMAC on the merits, but reversed on the decree due to failure to file a final judicial report. |
| Whether the trial court properly entered the final decree of foreclosure in light of R.C. 2329.191 and Loc.R. 11.03 requiring a final judicial report. | Jacobs asserts the final judicial report was not filed before the decree, violating statute and local rule. | GMAC argues minor noncompliance with local rule does not defeat the judgment. | Reversible error to enter decree without a final judicial report; court remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eschen v. Suico, 9th Dist. No. 07CA009304, 2008-Ohio-4294 (2008) (docket management and extension of time abuse of discretion standard)
- MBNA Bank Am., N.A. v. Bailey, 9th Dist. No. 22912, 2006-Ohio-1550 (2006) (docket management; extension of time abuse standard)
- In re Disqualification of Sutula, 105 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2004-Ohio-735 (2004) (disqualification standards for judicial proceedings)
- Pavarini v. Macedonia, 9th Dist. No. 20250, Apr. 18, 2001 (2001) (docket management and abuse of discretion review)
- Vinylux Prods., Inc. v. Commercial Fin. Group, 9th Dist. No. 22553, 2005-Ohio-4801 (2005) (trial court's implicit denial and timeliness impact on extension ruling)
- Bank of New York v. Brunson, 9th Dist. No. 52118, 2010-Ohio-3978 (2010) (notice and response period timing in summary judgment context)
- Berner v. Woods, 9th Dist. No. 07CA009132, 2007-Ohio-6207 (2007) (evidence consideration when improperly submitted materials are undisputed)
- Richardson v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 21697, 2004-Ohio-1878 (2004) (Civ.R. 56(E) evidence incorporation and admissibility)
- Chuparkoff v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 9th Dist. No. 22712, 2006-Ohio-3281 (2006) (summary judgment standard and burdens of proof)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996 (1996) (Dresher: shifting burden in Civ.R. 56 materials)
- Henkle v. Henkle, 75 Ohio App.3d 732, 1991 (1991) (evidence and notice in summary judgment context)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 1996 (1996) (standards for equitable relief and administrative rules)