2013 Ohio 1221
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Strickler and Krese used First Ohio as mortgage broker for residential loans; disclosure statements were provided by First Ohio and allegedly omitted required information.
- Strickler (2006 loan) and Krese (2005 loan) were dissatisfied and consulted same attorney; attorney found omissions in disclosures.
- Plaintiffs sued First Ohio, Western Surety Co., and Capitol Indemnity Corp.; sought class certification for all who purchased First Ohio services related to Ohio realty mortgages (May 2, 2002–present).
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment: violations of R.C. 1322.062 and liability under R.C. 1322.11; held damages arise from statutory violations.
- Trial court certified a class and appointed Strickler and Krese as representatives; First Ohio and Sureties appealed the certification ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class was properly certified under Civ.R. 23(B)(3). | Strickler and Krese satisfied commonality, predominance, and superiority. | Questions would be individualized due to need to prove actual injury. | Yes; predominance and superiority satisfied; certification affirmed. |
| Whether there was standing/common injury to support class certification. | Strickler and Krese shared the same injury from statutory violations. | Injury required for each member; standing undermined. | Standing and common injury established for purposes of certification. |
| Whether the trial court properly concluded that First Ohio’s disclosures violated R.C. 1322.062 and were liable under 1322.11. | Disclosures violated statutory requirements; damages potential under 1322.11. | Disputes as to specific disclosures; merits-based arguments improper at certification stage. | Court properly found violations and implied liability under the statute. |
| Whether the court conducted a rigorous analysis of Civ.R. 23 prerequisites. | Court carefully analyzed prerequisites; explicit reasoning not required for each item. | Court failed to perform rigorous analysis in judgment entry. | No reversible error; court’s analysis was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Consol. Mtge. Satisfaction Cases, 97 Ohio St.3d 465 (Ohio Supreme Court 2002) (sets class-certification prerequisites and clarifies rigor in analysis)
- Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio Supreme Court 1998) (commonality/standing; predominance concepts in class actions)
- Mozingo v. 2007 Gaslight Ohio, L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-5157 (9th Dist. 2012) (addressed predominance and superiority; standardized forms support certification)
- Hill v. Moneytree of Ohio, Inc., 2009-Ohio-4614 (9th Dist. 2009) (affirms certification standards and scope of review when merits are not weighed at certification)