2022 Ohio 2636
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Payne took out a student loan in 2002; the loan later entered default and was acquired/served by entities culminating in Transworld acting as custodian for National Collegiate Student Loan Trust-1.
- National Collegiate sued Payne in 2017 to collect on the charged-off loan; bench trial before a magistrate occurred July 24, 2018. Transworld employee James Cummins was the plaintiff's sole witness and authenticated loan records at trial.
- A 2017 CFPB Consent Order against Transworld (addressing affidavit and training deficiencies for suits filed 2014–2016) was admitted at the 2018 trial for impeachment; the magistrate considered it when assessing Cummins’ credibility.
- In January 2020 Cummins executed an affidavit in the CFPB administrative matter describing inadequate training at Transworld and asserting he reviewed trust files and would not present documents he believed false; he did not state he lied at the 2018 trial or that his trial testimony in this case was false.
- Payne moved in 2021 under Civ.R. 60(B)(3) and (5) to set aside the 2018 judgment, arguing Cummins’ post-trial affidavit showed he gave false testimony; the magistrate denied relief and the trial court adopted that decision. Payne appeals that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (National Collegiate) | Defendant's Argument (Payne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60(B)(3) relief (fraud on a party) is warranted based on Cummins' affidavit | Cummins' affidavit does not admit perjury; it shows he reviewed records and was not one of the unnamed unqualified affiants | Cummins later admitted inadequate training and that others lacked personal knowledge, so his 2018 testimony was false and the judgment procured by fraud | Denied — affidavit did not show by clear and convincing evidence that Cummins lied at the 2018 trial or that relief under 60(B)(3) is warranted |
| Whether 60(B)(5) relief (fraud on the court) is warranted | No evidence counsel for plaintiff engaged in fraud; CFPB allegations were known at trial and considered | The systemic affidavit defects alleged by Cummins amount to fraud on the court warranting relief | Denied — appellants did not show egregious subversion of the judicial process or counsel’s intent to defraud; perjury allegations alone do not suffice for 60(B)(5) |
| Whether Payne presented a meritorious defense for 60(B) purposes | N/A (plaintiff argues 60(B) threshold not met) | Payne asserts she has meritorious defenses she would present if judgment vacated | Court declined to reach merits because Payne failed to satisfy the statutory grounds for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (abuse-of-discretion review of Civ.R. 60(B) rulings)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (sets three-part GTE test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (GTE elements are conjunctive)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (distinguishes fraud on a party from fraud on the court)
- Geo. P. Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 71 F.3d 44 (perjury risk is ordinarily addressed via 60(B)(3), not inherent power)
- Hartford v. Hartford, 53 Ohio App.2d 79 (subsequent discovery of perjury generally insufficient to show fraud upon the court)
- Dye v. Smith, 189 Ohio App.3d 116 (no need to reach meritorious-defense question if movant fails to establish a statutory ground for 60(B) relief)