RBS v. Sharp
2018 Ohio 2480
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2010 Mary Kay Sharp executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage and defaulted in April 2010; the lender (RBS/Citizens) filed foreclosure in 2011.
- This Court previously reversed a summary-judgment foreclosure win for the bank because the bank had sent the HUD-required face-to-face meeting letter by regular mail rather than certified mail, creating factual issues under 24 C.F.R. § 203.604.
- The first foreclosure action was dismissed; the lender on remand later sent a certified-mail HUD face-to-face meeting notice on May 13, 2016 and sent a representative to Sharp’s home on June 4, 2016; Sharp declined the meeting and said she would involve counsel.
- The lender filed a new foreclosure complaint on June 7, 2016, moved for summary judgment, and supported its motion with an affidavit, loan documents, payment history, and the certified-mail letter.
- Sharp opposed, arguing the lender failed to satisfy HUD loss-mitigation requirements (e.g., consideration for special forbearance or partial claim) before accelerating the loan.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the lender; this appeal challenges whether conditions precedent under HUD rules were satisfied prior to foreclosure/acceleration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lender complied with 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 (reasonable effort for face-to-face meeting) before filing foreclosure | Lender: timely satisfied § 203.604 on the second action by sending certified-letter and making a home visit before refiling | Sharp: lender failed to satisfy HUD loss-mitigation prerequisites before accelerating the debt (initial acceleration occurred earlier) | Court: lender complied — certified letter + home visit occurred before this foreclosure filing; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 833 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Welco Indus., Inc. v. Applied Cos., 617 N.E.2d 1129 (Ohio 1993) (summary judgment should be granted cautiously)
- Mercer v. Halmbacher, 44 N.E.3d 1011 (Ohio 2015) (summary judgment standards and citation used by the court)