2014 Ohio 5710
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Lois Nardi signed a note for $256,105 payable to Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. with a mortgage securing the note.
- Chase acquired the note via merger in May 2011; Lois defaulted in October 2012 and Chase filed foreclosure.
- Chase moved for summary judgment, attaching the note, mortgage, and merger certificates; appellants sought discovery.
- In February 2014 Chase moved to substitute PennyMac as plaintiff; trial court later granted PennyMac summary judgment.
- Appellants argued lack of standing, improper assignment, and various alleged defects; they did not supply opposing evidence.
- The court affirmed summary judgment, holding standing, proper assignment, and admissibility of Chase’s business-record affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose at pleadings | Chase and PennyMac had enforceable interest in the note/mortgage. | Chase and PennyMac lacked standing at various stages of litigation. | Chase and PennyMac had standing; substitution conferred standing for PennyMac. |
| Validity of the assignment and chain of title | Assignment from Chase to PennyMac was valid and properly recorded. | Assignments were questionable and potentially defective; challengers were not party to assignment. | Assignment valid; challengers lacked standing to contest it. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence supporting summary judgment | Affidavits and attached documents established default and possession. | Evidence insufficient or conclusory to show standing or breach beyond mere allegations. | Evidence sufficient; no genuine issue of material fact regarding foreclosure or standing. |
| App.R. 16(A)(7) briefing deficiencies | Brief contained appropriate arguments regarding the assignment and standing. | Many arguments were vague and not properly supported by the record. | Several arguments were dismissed for briefing defects; even if considered, they would fail on the merits. |
| Civ.R. 10/D and 56/E standards applicability | Complaint and attached note/mortgage satisfy the pleading requirements. | There were potential deficiencies in how the documents were presented. | Complaint and attached documents complied with Civ.R. 10(D) and Civ.R. 56(E); business-record affidavit proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Oates, 2013-Ohio-5077 (11th Dist. 2013) (standing required at filing; initial lack cannot be cured later)
- Schwartzwald (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald), 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (standing to enforce instrument defined at filing; post-filing acquisition cannot cure lack)
- Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Horn, 2013-Ohio-2374 (9th Dist. Lorain 2013) (foreclosure standing requires showing interest in note/mortgage)
- United States Bank Natl. Assn. v. Gray, 2013-Ohio-3340 (10th Dist. Franklin 2013) (entitled to enforce instrument under R.C. 1303.31)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudolph, 2012-Ohio-6141 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2012) (look to note and mortgage to determine foreclosure viability)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Shaffer, 2013-Ohio-3205 (11th Dist. Geauga 2013) (standing analysis includes attachment of note and mortgage to complaint)