Lakeview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Amborski
2016 Ohio 2978
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2001 Joyce and Kenneth Amborski executed a promissory note and mortgage to finance their home; the mortgage was ultimately assigned to Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC.
- Appellee (Lakeview) alleged Joyce defaulted on January 1, 2014; Lakeview filed a foreclosure complaint May 20, 2014 seeking amounts due and foreclosure of the equity of redemption.
- Amborski served discovery (including requests for admissions) on June 18, 2014; counsel for Lakeview contends responses were served July 22, 2014 but were not received due to an internal mailroom problem.
- Amborski filed a notice of admissions and a motion to compel on August 5, 2014 after the response deadline; Lakeview moved to withdraw/strike the admissions and later produced discovery responses on August 8, 2014.
- The trial court granted Lakeview summary judgment and denied Amborski’s cross‑motion; it also allowed Lakeview to withdraw the deemed admissions and denied Amborski’s motion to compel as moot.
- Amborski appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in striking the admissions and denying the motion to compel, and (2) the court erred in granting summary judgment to Lakeview because the notice of default was legally insufficient. The Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lakeview) | Defendant's Argument (Amborski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting withdrawal of admissions and denying motion to compel | Withdrawal was appropriate because presentation of the merits would be served and there was no prejudice; discovery responses were actually sent and later re‑served | The failure to timely answer requests for admissions deemed the matters admitted under Civ.R. 36(A); withdrawing admissions was improper | Court affirmed: withdrawal allowed under Civ.R. 36(B) because it promoted resolution on the merits and Amborski showed no prejudice; motion to compel was moot and Civ.R. 37(E) required conferring first |
| Whether summary judgment for Lakeview was proper and whether notice of default satisfied conditions precedent | Lakeview produced evidentiary materials (servicer affidavit, endorsed note, assignments, notice of default) establishing prima facie foreclosure elements; notice by servicer was sufficient | Amborski conceded receipt but argued the notice was sent by Cenlar (servicer), not Lakeview, so the Note Holder did not give the required notice | Court affirmed: Lakeview met its burden; third‑party notice by loan servicer satisfied the note’s Section 6(c) and the notice was adequate; Amborski failed to show a genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. The V. Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 1998) (appellate review standard for discovery rulings; prejudice requirement)
- Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1985) (withdrawal of admissions favors resolution on the merits while protecting reliance prejudice)
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard articulated)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden to show absence of genuine issue)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (test for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)