Huntington Natl. Bank v. Kopnisky
2017 Ohio 641
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dennis and Sonya Kopnisky executed a note and mortgage on August 12, 2005, originally payable to Sky Bank; Huntington acquired Sky Bank in 2007 and a loan modification was signed in 2010.
- Huntington sent a Notice of Intention to Accelerate and Foreclose dated November 4, 2014; certified/first-class mailing evidence shows mailing on November 9, 2014 and receipt on November 10, 2014; notice demanded cure by December 9, 2014.
- Huntington filed a foreclosure complaint in February 2015; after a brief default procedural episode, the Kopniskys were permitted to answer and asserted defenses including failure of condition precedent (improper notice) and defects in mortgage recording.
- Huntington moved for summary judgment attaching an affidavit from Robin Scott asserting Huntington is Sky Bank’s successor, attaching the note, mortgage, loan modification, master mortgage, notice, and loan histories as business records.
- Kopniskys opposed, challenging Scott’s affidavit admissibility under Civ.R. 56(E) and Evid.R. 803(6), Huntington’s status as successor, and whether required pre-acceleration notice (30 days) was provided.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and entered a decree of foreclosure; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huntington is entitled to enforce the note/mortgage | Huntington is Sky Bank’s successor by merger and thus holder entitled to enforce the note (Scott affidavit + NIC report + endorsed note) | Kopniskys contend Huntington failed to prove successor status and that documents conflict (e.g., servicer label) | Huntington proven successor; no contrary evidence; Huntington may enforce the note |
| Admissibility of business records (Evid.R. 803(6)) / sufficiency of Scott affidavit | Scott is an authorized Huntington custodian; her affidavit authenticates business records attached and states they are kept in ordinary course | Kopniskys argue Scott lacks personal knowledge and attachments do not meet hearsay exception requirements | Scott’s affidavit and attachments satisfied Civ.R.56(E) and Evid.R.803(6); records admissible |
| Compliance with conditions precedent: required 30‑day notice before acceleration | Huntington contends the notice was mailed and provided at least 30 days (Huntington implies mailing on Nov 4 and/or Nov 9) | Kopniskys argue they were given only 29 days (counting from receipt) and thus condition precedent failed | Court finds operative mailing date is Nov 9, 2014; counting 30 days after mailing gives cure date Dec 9, 2014; Huntington satisfied notice requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314 (2002) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (2006) (summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s burden in summary judgment; initial showing of entitlement)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (burden shifts to nonmoving party to produce evidence on issues it would bear at trial)