State ex rel. Davet v. Sutula
2011 Ohio 2803
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Relator Davet, a defendant in a foreclosure action Nationsbanc Mtge. Corp. v. Davet (CV-304224), alleges lack of jurisdiction because Nationsbanc allegedly was not the owner or assignee at filing.
- Relator seeks prohibitory and mandamus relief to halt further orders and to vacate prior orders.
- Respondent judge is the trial court judge presiding over the foreclosure action; the case involves a challenge to standing/jurisdiction in foreclosure.
- The trial court denied the extraordinary relief; the matter was brought to this court via writ of prohibition and mandamus.
- The court analyzes whether lack of standing deprives the trial court of jurisdiction and whether an adequate remedy exists by appeal.
- The court ultimately dismisses the complaint, holding that Davet had an adequate remedy by appeal and that mandamus/prohibition are inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does lack of standing deprive the trial court of jurisdiction in a foreclosure action? | Davet argues Nationsbanc lacked standing to file, thus court lacks jurisdiction. | Respondent contends standing issue is not clearly jurisdictional and can be addressed on appeal. | Not clearly jurisdictional; adequate remedy by appeal exists. |
| Is Davet entitled to prohibition or mandamus to compel relief or vacate orders based on standing? | Davet seeks prohibition and mandamus to compel jurisdictional relief and vacate orders. | Respondent argues mandamus/prohibition require lack of adequate remedy and clear jurisdictional defect. | Relief denied; complaint dismissed because there was an adequate remedy by appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Slack, 2011-Ohio-613 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2011) (standing in foreclosure may be waived; jurisdictional status unsettled)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Triplett, 2011-Ohio-478 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2011) (ownership of mortgage at filing relevant to standing)
- State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (requirements for writ of prohibition)
- State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2008) (patent jurisdictional issues where writ may lie without adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998) (adequate remedy by appeal precludes mandamus)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 2005-Ohio-3829 (Ohio App.) (mandamus standards and adequate remedy considerations)