HSBC Bank U.S.A v. Faulkner
2018 Ohio 3221
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- HSBC sued Jeff A. Faulkner (individually and as trustee) to foreclose a mortgage on 6793 Elk Creek Road after Faulkner defaulted on the note.
- HSBC filed renewed motions for summary judgment and for default judgment; service certificates showed Faulkner was served by regular mail.
- Trial court set briefing deadlines; it granted Faulkner an extension to file an opposition, moving the deadline to September 12, 2017.
- Faulkner filed a memorandum opposing summary judgment one day after the extended deadline; HSBC moved to strike it as untimely and the court granted the motion to strike.
- The trial court granted HSBC summary judgment, finding HSBC met its initial burden and Faulkner failed to timely raise a material factual dispute; Faulkner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HSBC) | Defendant's Argument (Faulkner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faulkner was entitled to additional time or relief because HSBC "hid" the summary-judgment motion | HSBC argues motions were properly filed and served; deadlines were clear | Faulkner contends he had only five days to respond and the motion was "buried" inside other filings, denying him notice | Court held HSBC’s motion was discoverable; trial court permissibly managed docket and already granted an extension; striking untimely opposition was proper |
| Whether summary judgment was proper when HSBC met initial burden | HSBC produced evidence showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Faulkner argued procedural unfairness and later substantive defenses | Court held HSBC met initial burden and Faulkner failed to timely present contrary evidence; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Faulkner could raise breach, fraud, TILA/RESPA, bankruptcy-discharge circumvention claims on appeal | HSBC relied on the record and timely motion practice | Faulkner raised these substantive defenses on appeal as equitable objections to foreclosure | Court refused to consider new theories not raised below; issues forfeited on appeal |
| Whether striking untimely opposition violated due process or local rules | HSBC asserted procedural rules and service were followed; court granted extension already | Faulkner argued striking his filing violated due process and local rules | Court held granting/denying extensions is within trial court’s discretion; no due-process violation where extension was afforded and plaintiff missed it |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. RMB Enters., Inc., 197 Ohio App.3d 435 (12th Dist. 2011) (summary judgment terminates litigation where no genuine issue of material fact exists)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant bears initial burden in summary-judgment proceedings)
- Burgess v. Tackas, 125 Ohio App.3d 294 (8th Dist. 1998) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Bravard v. Curran, 155 Ohio App.3d 713 (12th Dist. 2004) (appellate court applies same standard as trial court when reviewing summary judgment)
- Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378 (8th Dist. 1997) (describing de novo standard for summary-judgment review)