HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v. Webb
102 N.E.3d 1080
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- HSBC sued Graydon and Terri Webb to recover on a promissory note and foreclose their Columbus residence; the Webbs answered denying knowledge of the allegations.
- HSBC moved for summary judgment supported by an affidavit from Cynthia Thomas, a Wells Fargo vice‑president and servicer employee, plus several attached loan documents; Thomas stated amounts due based on Wells Fargo business records.
- The only payment‑status document attached was a January 23, 2015 notice from America’s Service Company; HSBC did not attach the detailed account records Thomas said she relied on to calculate principal and interest.
- The Webbs moved to strike portions of Thomas’s affidavit for lack of personal knowledge, inadequate authentication, and failure to attach the underlying records as required by Civ.R. 56(E); they raised these objections in their summary‑judgment opposition.
- The trial court denied the motion to strike, granted summary judgment to HSBC, entered a money judgment and foreclosed; the Webbs appealed.
- The appellate court held that paragraphs of Thomas’s affidavit quantifying principal and interest must be stricken for noncompliance with Civ.R. 56(E), leaving HSBC without evidentiary proof of the amount due; therefore summary judgment was improper and the judgment was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HSBC met its initial burden on summary judgment in foreclosure by proving the amount of principal and interest owed | Thomas’s affidavit (and attached documents) established default, possession of the note, and amount due | Thomas lacked personal knowledge and relied on business records that were not attached as required by Civ.R. 56(E); affidavit insufficient | Struck the affidavit paragraphs that relied on unattached records; without them HSBC failed to prove amount due and summary judgment was improper |
| Whether an affiant who relies on business records must attach those records or certify copies under Civ.R. 56(E) | Not disputed that business‑record reliance can suffice if records are properly presented | Civ.R. 56(E) required the actual records or sworn copies to be attached when the affidavit’s statements rest on them | Court confirmed Civ.R. 56(E) requires attaching or serving the underlying records (or sworn true copies) when relied upon; failure mandates striking those portions |
| Whether the Webbs’ lack of affirmative evidence controverting the amount due bars relief | HSBC argued Webbs did not dispute default or amounts and offered no contrary Civ.R. 56 evidence | Webbs argued they timely challenged the affidavit’s sufficiency under Civ.R. 56(E), so HSBC still bore its initial burden | Court held a challenger who timely attacks an affidavit’s compliance with Civ.R. 56(E) need not submit contrary evidence to require the affiant to meet evidentiary rules |
| Whether attached documents (e.g., the Jan. 23, 2015 letter) were sufficient to establish post‑acceleration balance | HSBC relied on the attached notice and other attached loan documents to support default and balance | Webbs pointed out inconsistency and that the lone attached letter did not support the full balance or the calculations Thomas asserted | Court found the attached notice only supported a limited assertion of default and did not substitute for the missing account records used to compute principal and interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Smith, 850 N.E.2d 47 (Ohio 2006) (summary judgment standard and construing evidence for nonmovant)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 364 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment granted only when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s initial burden to set forth specific facts entitling it to summary judgment)
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 767 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 2002) (personal‑knowledge requirement for affidavits)
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, 423 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio 1981) (copies attached to affidavits satisfy Civ.R. 56(E) when affidavit states they are true reproductions)