Huntington Natl. Bank v. Coffman
18 N.E.3d 812
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Huntington National Bank filed foreclosure against Coffman; Miller asserted a priority lien against the property.
- Huntington’s November 2, 2007 mortgage contained an inaccurate metes and bounds description but included the correct parcel number and street address.
- Huntington attempted to re-record the mortgage to correct the description but did not secure execution by the parties, rendering the re-recorded mortgage doubtful.
- The trial court denied Miller’s motion for summary judgment and granted Huntington summary judgment on the issue of the mortgage’s validity.
- The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the judgment; Miller appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
- The appellate court held that the mortgage record, despite the incorrect description, provided sufficient notice to third parties that a mortgage encumbered the property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does an inaccurate metes and bounds description void a mortgage for lack of notice? | Miller argues the description defeats notice and makes the mortgage invalid. | Huntington contends the correct parcel number and street address, along with surrounding indicia, sufficed to provide notice. | Yes; the court held the mortgage provided notice despite the error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v. Drown, 578 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2009) (mortgage validity doesn't require perfect metes and bounds; notice may be adequate)
- In re Bunn, 578 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantive Ohio mortgage law does not require a precise legal description)
- ABN AMRO Mtge. Group, Inc. v. Jackson, 159 Ohio App.3d 551 (2d Dist. 2005) (permanent parcel number plus street address can provide notice of foreclosure)
- Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-2205 (8th Dist. Ohio) (proper street address and parcel number support notice when descriptions are not conflicting)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., N.A. v. Loudermilk, 2013-Ohio-2296 (5th Dist. Ohio) (correct street address and parcel number clarify the encumbrance)
- In re Easter (Stubbins v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc.), 367 B.R. 608 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007) (misleading legal description may fail to put purchaser on notice)