U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Perry, 2013 Ohio 3814

This is the second appeal in a foreclosure action by U.S. Bank against Worley and Dorothy Perry in Ohio's Eighth District.
On Perry I, the court found U.S. Bank failed to prove it was the holder of the note and mortgage at filing, so standing was not established.
The Ohio Supreme Court remanded after affirming Perry I and incorporating Schwartzwald's standing rule.
On remand, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of evidence that U.S. Bank owned the note or mortgage at filing.
U.S. Bank argued it could cure standing and that remand permitted additional evidence, but the court reviewed de novo and held standing was not shown at filing.
The court affirmed the dismissal without prejudice, allowing refiling if uncontroverted standing is shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing at filing was lacking	U.S. Bank contends it was holder per Schwartzwald/Patterson	Perrys argue lack of ownership at filing controls	Dismissal affirmed
Remand and additional evidence on standing	Remand allowed presentation of standing evidence	Law of the case precludes further proceedings on standing	Court did not require further standing proceedings; dismissal upheld without prejudice

Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 123 (2012-Ohio-5017) (standing is jurisdictional and must exist at filing)
Jordan (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jordan), 2009-Ohio-1092 (2009-Ohio-1092) (standing requires ownership of note and mortgage at filing)
Patterson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98360 (2012-Ohio-5894) (extends Schwartzwald: standing may be shown if mortgage assigned or note holder at filing)
Perry I, 2010-Ohio-6171 (2010-Ohio-6171) (limited holding on standing before remand)
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Perry, 134 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012-Ohio-5497) ( Supreme Court remanded for standing determination)