M&T Bank v. Johns
2014 Ohio 1886
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- M&T Bank filed a foreclosure complaint against Barbara Johns on March 9, 2012, alleging default on a promissory note secured by a mortgage.
- Johns disputed M&T Bank's standing to foreclose, arguing M&T lacked the note at the time the complaint was filed.
- The trial court initially granted summary judgment in part, found a question about whether M&T held the note at filing, and after further briefing and consideration of an affidavit, granted full summary judgment for M&T.
- The note attached to M&T’s summary-judgment materials showed indorsements: Quicken Loans → Countrywide Bank, FSB → M&T Bank, with the Countrywide→M&T indorsement bearing an undated/stamped signature.
- M&T submitted an affidavit from its attorney-in-fact and business records (loan status report) stating M&T acquired the note on November 16, 2011, before the March 2012 complaint. The mortgage was assigned to M&T on February 16, 2012.
- Johns appealed, arguing M&T lacked standing at the time the complaint was filed because the promissory note/indorsement did not establish M&T’s status at filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff had standing to foreclose as of the complaint filing | M&T: It was in possession of the note and acquired the note on Nov. 16, 2011 (before filing); affidavit and business records prove this | Johns: The note attached later had an undated/unsigned (stamped) indorsement to M&T, so M&T lacked standing at filing; post-filing proof cannot cure lack of standing | Held: M&T had standing — affidavit and business records showed it held the note and mortgage before filing; undated/stamped indorsement did not defeat standing |
| Whether debtor may challenge validity of assignment to show lack of standing | M&T: Debtor cannot challenge the assignment between third parties to defeat plaintiff's possession/standing | Johns: Challenged validity of assignment (stamped signature/undated) | Held: Debtor lacks standing to challenge the validity of the assignment between third parties; may only challenge whether plaintiff held the note at filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary-judgment standard and nonmoving party burden)
- Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012) (standing for foreclosure must exist at the time the complaint is filed)
- Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 332 (2010) (standing is required to invoke common-pleas court jurisdiction)