U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George, 2016 Ohio 7788

Background

Douglas and Robin George executed a mortgage note in 2002 originally payable to M/I Financial; chain of indorsements and an allonge purportedly link the note to U.S. Bank as trustee for a securitized trust.
U.S. Bank sued to recover the note balance and foreclose the mortgage; it moved for summary judgment and submitted an affidavit (Jones) and a deposition identification of the original note by its records custodian (McCray).
The copy of the note in support of summary judgment omitted indorsements shown elsewhere in the file and an asserted full-note attachment to a motion-to-incorporate was not in the record.
The trial court granted summary judgment for U.S. Bank; the Tenth District reversed in George I, finding genuine issues of material fact about U.S. Bank’s standing (whether it was a holder or a nonholder in possession with rights of a holder).
U.S. Bank filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the court failed to address evidence it was a nonholder in possession with rights of a holder; the Tenth District denied reconsideration, holding U.S. Bank’s evidentiary showing was insufficient to prove a valid, continuous chain of transfers under UCC Article 3.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was U.S. Bank a "person entitled to enforce" the note?	U.S. Bank: possession of the note plus evidence of transfer (assignments, production of original) make it a nonholder in possession with rights of a holder under R.C. 1303.31(A)(2).	Georges: record lacks a continuous, evidentiary-quality chain of negotiation/indorsements; assignment/merger evidence is absent or unreliable.	Court: No — genuine issues of material fact exist; U.S. Bank failed to prove it was a holder or a nonholder in possession with holder rights.
Did production at deposition establish possession of the original note?	U.S. Bank: original note was produced at its 30(B)(6) deposition, establishing possession.	Georges: McCray lacked personal knowledge and chain of custody; production alone is insufficient.	Court: No — production was not proven undisputedly and McCray’s testimony lacked foundation; possession was not established for summary judgment.
Can assignment of the mortgage alone transfer the right to enforce the note?	U.S. Bank: mortgage assignments (some referencing the note) effect transfer of note rights; transfer of mortgage supports its standing.	Georges: assignments do not substitute for negotiation/indorsement of the note; merger and authority issues further undermine any transfer.	Court: No — assignment of mortgage does not automatically confer the right to enforce the note; recent Ohio law rejects equating mortgage assignment with note transfer.
Does R.C. 1303.22 allow a transferee to become a person entitled to enforce without indorsement?	U.S. Bank: R.C. 1303.22(A)/(B) allow a transferee with possession and evidence of transfer to acquire enforcement rights even absent traditional indorsement.	Georges: transferee only receives the rights transferor had; absent proof transferor was a holder or had enforcement rights, transferee gains nothing.	Court: No — UCC provisions do not relieve U.S. Bank of proving a valid chain and indorsements where required; simple transfer cannot substitute for negotiation/indorsement for a non-bearer note.

Key Cases Cited

Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel, 133 Ohio St.3d 345 (Ohio 2012) (discusses effect of merger and successor-entity rights)
Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel, 133 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 2012) (addresses post-merger rights to enforce agreements)
In re Wells, 407 B.R. 873 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (distinguishes assignment from negotiation under Article 3; assignment alone does not transfer enforcement rights)
Carr v. Home Owners Loan Corp., 148 Ohio St. 1 (Ohio 1947) (recognizes personal-judgment on note and foreclosure as separate remedies)
Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 482 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment requires construing evidence in favor of the nonmoving party)