Washington Mutual Bank, FA v. Wallace
194 Ohio App. 3d 549
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wallace faced a 2008 default foreclosure judgment in Warren County against her property in Waynesville, following WaMu’s foreclosure action on Wallace’s note and mortgage.
- WaMu allegedly acquired the note and mortgage through a July 11, 2008 complaint and an August 14, 2008 assignment from Wells Fargo; the court issued a default judgment on August 20, 2008.
- Wallace moved to vacate the 2008 default judgment (May 11, 2009) arguing WaMu lacked standing at filing and thus the court lacked jurisdiction.
- Wallace separately sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B) (May 14, 2009), asserting WaMu misrepresented standing and the judgment’s “advances” clause was vague and not final.
- A sheriff’s sale in December 2010 sold the property to WaMu for $66,667, with WaMu later receiving the remaining proceeds; Wallace challenges remained on appeal.
- The trial court’s rulings were affirmed, with the court finding WaMu’s standing was cured by the August 2008 assignment and that Civ.R. 60(B) relief was unjustified; the court also discussed mootness under R.C. 2329.45.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was WaMu’s 2008 foreclosure judgment void for lack of standing at filing? | WaMu’s standing was established when Wells Fargo assigned the note and mortgage to WaMu before final judgment. | WaMu lacked standing at filing and thus the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. | WaMu’s lack of standing at filing was cured before final judgment; the court had subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Was Wallace entitled to Civ.R. 60(B) relief from the 2008 judgment? | WaMu’s conduct did not prevent Wallace from presenting defenses; jurisdiction existed. | The judgment was not void for vagueness and Akins/McGinnis issues were waived; judgment final and finalizable. | No Civ.R. 60(B) relief; judgment not void or voidable under cited standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1998) (standing challenges are jurisdictional only in limited administrative contexts; Civ.R. 17 governs substitution of real party in interest)
- Bankers Trust Co. of California v. Tutin, 2009-Ohio-1333 (Summit App. 2009) (mootness exception for foreclosure appeals; distribution of proceeds affects mootness analysis)
- State ex rel. Bays v. Bayless, 2009-Ohio-6115 (Ohio 2009) (standing may be cured after filing when real party in interest arises prior to judgment)
- Stuart, 2010-Ohio-3018 (Ohio 2010) (standing issues in foreclosure cured by subsequent assignment before judgment)
- Bayless, 2009-Ohio-6115 (Ohio 2009) (standing cured after filing; related to U.S. Bank v. Duvall briefing)
- Sims, 2010-Ohio-847 (Ohio 2010) (foreclosure judgment sufficiency of amounts for redemption; practical approach upheld)
- McGinnis (Geauga Savs. Bank v. McGinnis), 2010-Ohio-6247 (Ohio 2010) (vagueness in foreclosure judgment is voidable, not void)