Huntington Natl. Bank Mtge. Loan Dept. v. Peppel
2014 Ohio 3084
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2003 Michael and Natalie Peppel executed a $670,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage naming MERS as nominee for Huntington National Bank; in 2004 Natalie was released and Michael became sole obligor and owner.
- The loan went into default at an unspecified date; MERS assigned the mortgage to Huntington in December 2012 and Huntington filed a foreclosure complaint in April 2013.
- Huntington moved for summary judgment in October 2013, attaching an affidavit from an authorized bank signer (Clair L. Turk) stating the loan was in default and attaching the note and mortgage but no payment history or business records.
- Michael opposed and moved for leave to file an amended answer asserting Huntington failed to give notice of default; he did not submit affidavits or other sworn evidence in support.
- The trial court granted Huntington's summary judgment motion; Michael appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to consider materials he filed and (2) Huntington's affidavit relied on unattached business records and thus failed to carry its initial burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huntington met its initial burden on summary judgment | Huntington produced sworn affidavit and loan documents showing default | Peppel argued affidavit relied on business records not attached and thus should be struck | Court held Peppel waived challenge by failing to move to strike; Huntington met initial burden |
| Whether the trial court failed to consider all appropriate materials under Civ.R. 56(C) / Murphy | Huntington argued court may rely only on evidentiary materials and need not consider unsworn briefing | Peppel argued the court ignored his Memorandum in Opposition and Motion to Amend, violating Murphy duty to examine filings | Court held unsworn memorandum and motion to amend contain no admissible evidence; court satisfied Murphy because only sworn/authorized materials are required to be considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (standard for granting summary judgment and construing evidence most strongly for nonmoving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s initial burden in summary judgment and nonmovant’s required response)
- Steganski v. Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc., 37 Ohio App.3d 78 (8th Dist.) (failure to object to evidence at trial court waives error on appeal)
- Murphy v. City of Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (trial court must conscientiously examine all appropriate materials filed when ruling on summary judgment)
- Green v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 85 Ohio App.3d 223 (9th Dist.) (unsworn documents in opposition to summary judgment have no evidentiary value)
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (1996) (nonmovant may not rely on mere allegations; must produce affidavit or other Civ.R. 56 evidence to create genuine issue)