GMAC Mtge., L.L.C. v. Jackson
2013 Ohio 2150
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- GMAC filed foreclosure against Stanley Jackson for property at 1566 Kingwood Circle, Marion, Ohio, alleging the mortgage attached the fee simple estate and that Jackson defaulted.
- Jackson failed to timely answer; GMAC sought default judgment but later withdrew it; GMAC then moved for summary judgment supported by Katrina Jordan’s affidavit about default and lack of cure.
- Jackson sought leave to file an answer instanter; the court granted leave on May 14, 2012, and Jackson answered with defenses and seven affirmative defenses.
- The trial court, in August 2012, granted summary judgment on some issues (MERS authority to assign; GMAC’s lack of need for Jackson’s signature, and a permissible workout option) but found a genuine issue of material fact on whether GMAC was holder of the note.
- GMAC filed an endorsed-note and certified documents; after renewed motions (October–November 2012), the court granted full summary judgment and foreclosed; Jackson appeals alleging unclean hands for GMAC’s alleged misrepresentations about loan modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unclean hands precluding summary judgment | GMAC argues unclean hands not proven; no admission of fault; no equitable defense warranted | Jackson asserts GMAC encouraged him to miss payments to trigger modification, tainting the action | Unclean hands not proven; summary judgment affirmed on this basis |
| Authority of MERS to assign mortgage | GMAC relies on MERS assignment authority (Shifflet) | Jackson challenges MERS assignment, seeking lack of standing | Court upheld MERS authority to assign; no standing defect |
| GMAC’s standing as holder of the note | GMAC is the holder of the note and mortgage | Jackson disputes holder status and collection rights | Record supported GMAC as holder; no genuine issue on note ownership after renewed motion |
| Impact of loan modification efforts on summary judgment | Settlement efforts do not bar summary judgment; uncompleted negotiations irrelevant | Modification discussions show lack of standing or unclean hands | Proceedings permit summary judgment despite ongoing modification discussions |
Key Cases Cited
- Countrywide Home Loans Serv., L.P. v. Shifflet, 2010-Ohio-1266 (3d Dist. No. 9-09-31, 2010) (established authority for assignment by MERS under Ohio law)
- Key Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Bolin, 2011-Ohio-4532 (8th Dist. No. 2010CA00285, 2011) (mortgage clause permits lender to accept payments but does not waive obligations; no unclean hands)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary-judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (initial burden on moving party in Civ.R. 56)
- Conley–Slowinski v. Superior Spinning & Stamping Co., 128 Ohio App.3d 360 (6th Dist.1998) (appellate standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (1995) (summary-judgment standard articulation)