U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Kapitula, 2013 Ohio 2638

U.S. Bank filed a 2009 foreclosure action against Sergey and Svetlana Kapitula after default on their mortgage; default judgment entered when they failed to answer.
Kapitulas did not appeal the 2009 default judgment.
In 2012, Kapitulas moved to vacate under Civ.R. 60(B), arguing lack of standing, fraud upon the court, and voidness of the judgment.
Trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
Appellate court held that the Kapitulas failed to prove standing or fraud; and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there error in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief for lack of standing?	Kapitulas failed to show U.S. Bank lacked standing.	Bank lacked standing per Schwartzwald.	No error; standing not proven.
Did the Civ.R. 60(B)(5) claim of fraud upon the court warrant relief?	Bank committed fraud on the court.	No fraud; conduct legitimate under Suster/Schwartzwald lineage.	No abuse of discretion; no fraud.
Did Kapitulas meet the GTE test for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)?	Kapitulas had meritorious defenses and grounds for relief.	Failed to show entitlement under Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5).	Failed to meet the second prong; relief denied.
Was U.S. Bank's conduct in filing timely or properly characterized as fraud on the court?	Bank's conduct constitutes fraud on the court.	Conduct legitimate under Suster prior to Schwartzwald.	Not established as fraud on the court.

GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (establishes GTE test for Civ.R. 60(B))
Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1983) (fraud on the court under Civ.R. 60(B)(5))
Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (Ohio 2012) (disapproved Jones approach; governs standing/fraud analysis in 60(B))
Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1998) (plaintiff lender conduct context; plurality opinion later tempered by Schwartzwald)