U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Greenless
2015 Ohio 356
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- U.S. Bank filed for foreclosure against William Greenless II and Stephanie Shank, alleging default on a promissory note and that all conditions precedent had been satisfied.
- The case was put on inactive docket while defendants participated in a trial loan-modification program, then reactivated when the bank alleged nonparticipation.
- U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment against Greenless and obtained default judgment as to Shank; Greenless opposed summary judgment.
- The bank supported its motion with an affidavit from a bank officer (Jennifer Crabtree) and an acceleration/foreclosure letter dated October 24, 2012.
- Greenless argued the bank failed to satisfy conditions precedent (notice/acceleration requirements) and that the affidavit lacked personal knowledge/supporting records.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bank proved it satisfied conditions precedent (notice/acceleration) before foreclosure | Bank: pleaded generally that all conditions precedent were satisfied; relied on affidavit and acceleration letter | Greenless: bank did not show required notice (default, cure steps, 30-day period, method of mailing/delivery) | Bank failed Dresher initial burden; genuine issues of fact exist; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether the bank affiant had personal knowledge to support summary-judgment evidence | Bank: affiant is an officer who reviewed bank records and attested to facts | Greenless: affidavit lacks detail about affiant’s duties, basis of knowledge, and supporting records for defaults/notice | Affidavit gave some basis for knowledge but did not supply documents proving default/notice as required; affidavit insufficient to carry bank’s burden on conditions precedent |
| Whether failure to plead Civ.R. 9(C) particularity resulted in admission of bank’s performance | Bank: Greenless’s general denial/affirmative defense did not meet Civ.R. 9(C), so conditions precedent are admitted | Greenless: asserted failure to give proper notices as an affirmative defense | Appellate court declined to rely on any alleged admission because bank did not raise that argument in its summary-judgment motion; court addressed merits instead |
| Sufficiency of acceleration/foreclosure letter attached to motion | Bank: Exhibit D (acceleration letter) evidences acceleration/notice | Greenless: letter fails to state default, cure actions, specific 30-day cure period, and does not show method of delivery | Letter was vague, omitted required mortgage-specified content and did not show it was mailed/delivered as required; insufficient evidence of compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (view facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Civ.R. 56(C) summary judgment test)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s initial evidentiary burden on summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (nonmoving party’s reciprocal burden to show triable issue)