JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Stevens
2017 Ohio 7165
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- In 2002 Stevens executed a $110,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage; MERS was the original mortgagee/nominee and later assigned the mortgage to J.P. Morgan Chase (Chase).
- Chase filed foreclosure in 2013, attached the note (endorsed in blank), mortgage, and an assignment, and submitted an affidavit from Chase VP Samuel Mueller stating Chase possessed the original note and that attached copies were true and correct.
- Stevens, pro se, answered and opposed summary judgment, alleging the note copy was not original, the signature was a computer forgery, and the MERS→Chase assignment was invalid; he submitted affidavits from two proffered experts (a mortgage broker/private investigator and a computer/electrical engineer).
- The magistrate recommended granting summary judgment to Chase; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, excluding the proffered experts as unqualified or their evidence as inadmissible and finding Mueller’s affidavit sufficient under Civ.R. 56(E).
- The court held Stevens lacked standing to challenge the assignment (he was not a party or beneficiary) and that Chase, as possessor of a note endorsed in blank, was a holder entitled to enforce the note; judgment for Chase was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / entitlement to enforce the note and foreclose | Chase: possessed original note endorsed in blank and had assignment; thus is holder/person entitled to enforce | Stevens: note copy not original; signature forged; assignment invalid so Chase lacks right to enforce | Held: Chase demonstrated possession of note endorsed in blank and/or assignment; entitled to enforce; summary judgment for Chase |
| Authenticity of signature / document foundation | Chase: Mueller affidavit based on personal knowledge and business records satisfies Civ.R. 56(E) — no requirement to aver comparison to originals | Stevens: Mueller did not aver he compared copies to originals; deposition needed to test foundation; signature is a computer forgery | Held: Mueller’s affidavit met Civ.R. 56(E); no requirement to state comparison to originals; Stevens not prejudiced by lack of deposition |
| Admissibility and qualification of defense experts | Chase: proffered experts lack proper qualifications and their opinions rely on publicly available data or unsupported conclusions | Stevens: experts show forgery and chain-of-title problems warrant trial | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding experts — one’s opinions were not based on reliable specialized methodology or were irrelevant to standing |
| Right to attack mortgage assignment / chain of title | Chase: even if assignment were imperfect, the note endorsed in blank makes chain-of-title objections immaterial; mortgagor lacks standing to attack assignment when not a party/beneficiary | Stevens: assignment was defective ("robo-signer") and void, so Chase cannot enforce | Held: Mortgagor lacked standing to challenge assignment; equitable rule that mortgage follows the note applies, so transfer/possession of note controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1977) (summary-judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting and reciprocal obligations on summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459, 423 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio 1981) (affidavit/foundation principles for business records and not requiring comparison averment)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. Marcino, 181 Ohio App.3d 328, 908 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio Ct. App.) (mortgage follows the note; negotiation of note effects equitable assignment of mortgage)