JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Dattilo
2014 Ohio 5286
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Dattilo signed a $73,000 note July 27, 2006 secured by a mortgage on 3691 East 63rd Street, Cleveland; both Dattilo and husband Tony Dattilo signed the mortgage.
- An allonge endorsed in blank was affixed to the note the same day.
- In March 2013 Dattilo defaulted; May 15, 2013, the mortgage was assigned to Chase by Aegis.
- Chase filed foreclosure in June 2013; Chase moved for summary judgment and Dattilo sought additional time to respond, granted January 2014; summary judgment granted March 2014.
- Dattilo argued promissory estoppel—claiming Chase promised to negotiate a modification but failed—barred foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does promissory estoppel bar foreclosures here? | Dattilo | Dattilo | No; promissory estoppel not proven and not a bar to foreclosure |
| Was Chase's standing/entitlement to enforce the note and mortgage established? | Chase | Dattilo | Chase established standing and entitlement to foreclose |
Key Cases Cited
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Tr. Co. v. Najar, 2013-Ohio-1657 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98502) (foreclosure requires chain of assignments and default proof)
- RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Krasnov, 2014-Ohio-4217 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100992) (summary judgment burden and admissible evidence standard)
- Pappas v. Ippolito, 177 Ohio App.3d 625 (8th Dist. 2008) (elements of promissory estoppel)
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. Calvert, 2012-Ohio-2883 (9th Dist. Summit No. 25684) (promissory estoppel not established when no enforceable modification promised)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stevens, 2014-Ohio-1399 (7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 219) (lender not obligated to modify loan; negotiations do not alter terms)