U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Stanze, 2013 Ohio 2474

U.S. Bank NA holds a note and mortgage from the Stanzes (Feb 2009) and foreclosed after default on payments.
Stanzes delayed final payment under a Special Forbearance Agreement after hardship; four monthly payments were made, but $7,176.46 remained due.
Bank accelerated and filed suit for balance and foreclosure after Stanzes failed to cure by May 17, 2011.
Stanzes argued HUD face-to-face meeting requirements were not satisfied before foreclosure.
Trial court granted summary judgment, finding waiver of the face-to-face issue due to failure to plead; judgment entered for Bank.
On appeal, court held no genuine issue of material fact because Stanzes did not properly plead face-to-face requirement and thus waived the argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of face-to-face requirement defense	Stanzes waived by failing to plead properly or raise the defense.	Face-to-face requirement is a live issue; it can defeat summary judgment if disputed.	Waiver established; no material fact; judgment affirmed
Characterization of HUD face-to-face requirement (condition precedent vs. affirmative defense)	Requirement can be treated as a condition precedent/pleadings issue.	Should be treated as an affirmative defense if pleaded.	Courts held argument waived; no material dispute; judgment affirmed

Lewis v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 1993 WL 310411 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 93AP-121, 1993) (Civ.R. 9(C) governs pleading of conditions precedent; denial must be specific)
Jim’s Steak House v. City of Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 18 (1998) (affirmative defenses must be pled; other defenses waived if not raised)
Smith v. Five Rivers MetroParks, 134 Ohio App.3d 754 (2d Dist.1999) (summary judgment standard; review de novo)
GNFH, Inc. v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 172 Ohio App.3d 127 (2d Dist.2007) (summary judgment review and evidentiary standards)
Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. Of Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (4th Dist.1993) (judicial deference in review of summary judgment)