Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Groves
2017 Ohio 887
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nationstar filed a foreclosure action March 25, 2014; Groves answered April 25, 2014.
- Nationstar moved for summary judgment January 27, 2015; Groves received an extension but filed no opposition; court granted summary judgment and entered a foreclosure decree on May 7, 2015 with Civ.R. 54(B) language.
- Groves did not appeal the May 7, 2015 judgment. The property was ordered sold, sold at sheriff’s sale March 7, 2016, and sale was confirmed March 28, 2016.
- Groves filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion March 30, 2016 seeking to set aside the May 7, 2015 summary-judgment decree, arguing Nationstar lacked standing and its summary-judgment affidavit was insufficient.
- Trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion as untimely and Groves appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nationstar) | Defendant's Argument (Groves) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 7, 2015 foreclosure judgment was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Nationstar lacked standing | Nationstar contended the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over foreclosure and standing defects do not strip that jurisdiction | Groves argued Nationstar lacked standing at filing, so the judgment was void ab initio and subject to collateral attack via Civ.R. 60(B) | Court held lack of standing does not defeat subject-matter jurisdiction; judgment was voidable (not void) and must be challenged by direct appeal, not by collateral attack under Civ.R. 60(B) |
| Whether Groves’ Civ.R. 60(B) motion could set aside the summary-judgment decree on sufficiency-of-evidence grounds after delay | Nationstar argued Groves improperly used Civ.R. 60(B) as substitute for direct appeal and that the motion was untimely | Groves argued the summary-judgment affidavit was insufficient under Civ.R. 56 and Nationstar failed to prove it was the real party in interest | Court held Groves’ claims were barred by res judicata and his Civ.R. 60(B) motion was untimely; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (standard of review for Civ.R. 60(B) is abuse of discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-prong test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 2014) (lack of standing affects a party's ability to invoke jurisdiction over the case but does not defeat a court's subject-matter jurisdiction; such defects render a judgment voidable, not void)