2013 Ohio 1046
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Shelats opened a revolving line of credit with National City Bank in 1998, secured by a mortgage; Ruma Shelat guaranteed the note.
- In 2003, Shelats obtained a $840,000 loan from Washington Mutual Bank secured by a WaMu mortgage; proceeds partially applied to National City’s line.
- After the WaMu loan proceeds were applied, Shelats charged additional $286,615.04 on the National City line.
- Washington Mutual’s assets were acquired by JP Morgan Chase on Sept. 25, 2008, including the mortgage at issue.
- National City Bank filed a foreclosure against the Shelats on Nov. 24, 2008, naming WaMu/JP Morgan Chase as a party; default was entered on Feb. 9, 2009, and a foreclosure judgment followed on Mar. 31, 2009.
- JP Morgan Chase moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) on July 12, 2010; the trial court denied, magistrate’s order issued June 8, 2011, objections denied, and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s order on June 13, 2012; the court affirmed the denial and judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 60(B) relief motions were timely and proper | JPMorgan contends within reasonable time; excusable neglect | JPMorgan argues excusable neglect and meritorious defenses justify relief | No abuse; Rule 60(B) not timely under (1); (5) not proper |
| Whether 60(B)(5) relief was warranted | JPMorgan asserts extraordinary circumstances and meritorious defense | PNC opposes; no windfall or injustice shown | Relief denied; not justified under (5) |
| Whether entry of foreclosure and denial of relief amounted to plain error | Foreclosure entry unjust or erroneous | No plain error; proper discretion exercised | No plain error; decisions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Key v. Mitchell, 81 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1998) (Rule 60(B) not a substitute for direct appeal; timing concerns)
- Bobardier Capital, Inc. v. W.W. Cycles, Inc., 155 Ohio App.3d 484 (Ohio 2003) (Rule 60(B) movant barred if appeal pursued timely)
- Citimortgage, Inc. v. Buttermore, 2012-Ohio-5351 (5th Dist.) (CF Rule 60(B) distinctions and timeliness)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (1983) (Rule 60(B)(5) not substitute for other provisions)
- Daroczy v. Lantz, 2002-Ohio-5417 (10th Dist.) (Waiver of 60(B) relief when timely appeal available)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (Discretionary standard for Rule 60(B) motions)