MidFirst Bank v. Stump
2017 Ohio 4312
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mark signed a $156,716 promissory note on March 9, 2007; both Mark and Suellen signed a mortgage on the same day that secured the loan against 6588 Strathcona Ave., Dublin, Ohio.
- The mortgage’s first page identified Mark as "Borrower," but both spouses initialed every page and each signed on a signature line labeled "Borrower." Paragraph 12 of the mortgage stated that a co‑signer who does not sign the note mortgages that co‑signer’s interest but is not personally liable on the note.
- The mortgage was assigned (Liberty → MERS → MidFirst Bank) and recorded; MidFirst is the assignee seeking foreclosure.
- Suellen filed for Chapter 7 in 2008. MidFirst sued to foreclose in 2015 and moved for partial summary judgment to declare the mortgage enforceable against Suellen’s undivided one‑half interest.
- Suellen opposed, submitting an affidavit that she only signed to release dower rights and noting the notary acknowledgement omitted her signature. The trial court granted partial and then final summary judgment for MidFirst; Suellen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mortgage unambiguously granted a security interest in Suellen’s one‑half interest despite the granting clause naming only Mark | Mortgage language read as a whole — signature block labeling both signers "Borrower," paragraph 12 co‑signer provision, and related signed documents — unambiguously show intent to mortgage Suellen’s interest | Suellen intended only to release dower rights and her affidavit creates a genuine issue of material fact | Court held mortgage unambiguous that Suellen, by signing as "Borrower" and initialing the pages including paragraph 12, granted a security interest in her one‑half interest; parol evidence affidavit inadmissible |
| Whether a defective/notarized acknowledgment (notary acknowledged only Mark) invalidates the mortgage or prevents enforcement by the assignee | Any defect in acknowledgement does not prevent enforcement between the parties or by an assignee absent fraud | Notary omission renders mortgage defective under R.C. 5301.01 and unenforceable | Court held defects in acknowledgement do not defeat enforcement between the parties or the assignee in absence of fraud; mortgage enforceable against Suellen’s interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (summary judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s initial summary judgment burden)
- Hope Academy Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgt., L.L.C., 145 Ohio St.3d 29 (parol evidence and intent presumption from written contract)
- Foster Wheeler Enviresponse v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353 (contract construed as whole; hardships do not create ambiguity)
- Ream (SFJV 2005, LLC v. Ream), 187 Ohio App.3d 715 (mortgage with identical co‑signer provision construed to mortgage co‑signer’s interest despite note signed only by spouse)
- Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (primary objective when interpreting contracts is to ascertain parties’ intent)