2020 Ohio 99
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2000 Rimmer executed a $5,000 mortgage; she paid it off on April 10, 2001. Citi (through predecessors/mergers) was the mortgagee but did not record a satisfaction within the 90 days required by R.C. 5301.36.
- Rimmer filed a class action in 2005 seeking statutory damages ($250 per loan), interest, and costs for late recording of satisfactions. Extensive discovery occurred in 2005–2006.
- Citi’s records showed that most paid-off loans in the period were subject to arbitration clauses (98,206 payoffs; 5,254 without arbitration). The arbitration issue became central after the Ohio Supreme Court’s Alexander decision applying arbitration clauses to mortgage-satisfaction claims.
- After multiple appeals and remands, the trial court certified a class excluding borrowers with arbitration agreements (as interpreted post-Alexander). Citi identified 2,814 candidate accounts and, after title searches, 275 class members fit the certified definition.
- Citi stipulated liability for statutory damages to those 275 class members ($250 each); the court entered judgment totaling $68,750 and later awarded attorney fees. Rimmer appealed raising seven assignments of error focused on class exclusion, discovery, hearings, and the class-definition wording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Citi had to produce separately signed arbitration agreements to exclude borrowers from the certified class | Rimmer: exclusion invalid without production of the borrower’s separately signed arbitration agreement; presumption against arbitration when disputed | Citi: class was certified to exclude borrowers whose loan files showed arbitration; plaintiff could have defined class differently; Citi complied with discovery and produced loan files | Held: No. The certified class excluded borrowers with arbitration provisions; Citi need not produce separately signed arbitration agreements for that exclusion and trial court did not abuse discretion denying belated discovery requests |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Rimmer’s 2016 request to reopen discovery regarding signed arbitration agreements | Rimmer: discovery into signed arbitration agreements was timely and necessary to verify exclusions | Citi: extensive discovery occurred in 2005–2006; records and loan files were available and the request was untimely and prejudicial | Held: Denial not an abuse of discretion — Rimmer had long opportunity to inspect files; reopening discovery 11 years after filing was unreasonable |
| Whether the trial court erred by entering stipulated judgment (and identifying class members) without a hearing | Rimmer: judgment entered solely on Citi attorneys’ statements and without evidentiary hearing to determine membership and exclusions | Citi: liability was stipulated; the only remaining issue was identity of members under the certified class; no timely request for hearing was made | Held: No error — Citi admitted liability, identification of members under the class definition was the core dispute, and Rimmer did not timely request a hearing; issues waived when not raised below |
| Whether the class definition phrase ("entered into a residential mortgage agreement from March 8, 1999") is a clerical error and should refer to payoff dates instead | Rimmer: definition should be based on when mortgages were paid off (the operative event), not when they were entered into; current wording drastically reduced class size | Citi: class definition was established by prior appellate mandates and orders | Held: The phrasing was the law of the case following prior appellate decisions (Rimmer II/III); the claim is precluded and not reviewable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Wells Fargo Fin. Ohio 1, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 341 (Ohio 2009) (arbitration agreements in loan documents apply to mortgage-satisfaction claims)
- Hamilton v. Ohio Savs. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (1998) (seven-factor rule for class certification)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (allocation of duties for class notice and identification)
- Marks v. C.P. Chem. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 200 (1987) (trial court expertise in class-management decisions)
- HealthSouth Corp. v. Testa, 132 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (policy reasons supporting law-of-the-case and consistency of results)
- Finnan v. L.F. Rothschild & Co., Inc., 726 F.Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (individual defenses may be subordinate to dominant common questions)