PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Unknown Heirs of Cox, 2013 Ohio 4614

Delores Cox borrowed $184,000 in 2004 from First Financial Bank to buy a home, with a mortgage securing the loan.
The mortgage was assigned from First Financial Bank to PHH Mortgage in May 2007 and that assignment was file-stamped, notarized, and recorded in the same month.
Delores Cox died on January 22, 2011, before PHH filed suit.
PHH held both the note (endorsed in blank) and the mortgage for about four years prior to suit.
Zimmerman and William Cox, as heirs, made loan payments through March 2011; PHH filed a foreclosure complaint in May 2011.
PHH moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, rejecting challenges to the assignment’s validity and standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PHH had standing to foreclose.	PHH held the note and, by endorsement in blank, the mortgage; assignment validity contested but not essential.	Wileman lacked authority to assign; the mortgage assignment could be fraudulent, undermining PHH's standing.	PHH had standing; assignment issues did not defeat foreclosure.
If the assignment were fraudulent, whether the mortgage could still be enforced.	Even with possible fraud, the note secured by the mortgage and possession transfer gave PHH equitable mortgage rights.	Fraudulent assignment could defeat PHH’s entitlement to foreclose.	The mortgage follows the note; PHH could enforce notwithstanding potential fraud in the assignment.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Loudermilk, 2013-Ohio-2296 (5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2012-CA-30) (note transfer creates holder status; mortgage follows the note)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Najar, 2013-Ohio-1657 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98502) (equitable assignment of mortgage when note transferred)
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Gray, 2013-Ohio-3340 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-953) (mortgage follows note when the note is transferred)
Schwartzwald v. Ohio, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (2012-Ohio-5017) (lack of standing if foreclosure commenced before assignment)