Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Goebel
2015 Ohio 38
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Goebel and Ashley Powell (Powell) borrowed from Southern Ohio Mortgage to buy a Centerville home; Wells Fargo acquired the note and mortgage via endorsement/assignment; borrowers defaulted and Wells Fargo sued for judgment on the note and foreclosure; prior appeal held Wells Fargo could sue on the note and that Powell’s equity of redemption foreclosure was improper pending Powell's claims; HUD face-to-face interview requirement (24 C.F.R. § 203.604) was raised as an affirmative defense; on remand, Powell moved to add a supplemental affidavit; the trial court granted summary judgment against Powell and entered an Amended Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure against both Goebel and Powell; Goebel and Powell appealed the amended judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 2, 2014 amended judgment forecloses Powell was proper despite pending Powell summary judgment. | Powell: summary judgment had not been resolved yet. | Goebel/ Powell: amended judgment forecloses Powell improperly; should await Powell ruling. | Overruled; amended judgment validly addressed Powell. |
| Whether Wells Fargo complied with 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 face-to-face requirement and related exceptions. | Powell: genuine issue of material fact as to compliance; bank failed to show exceptions applied. | Wells Fargo: Powell burden for noncompliance not required to negate exceptions; no genuine issue. | Remanded as to Powell; trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Powell’s HUD compliance claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goebel I, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Goebel, 2014-Ohio-472 (2d Dist. Ohio (2014)) (reversed foreclosure to the extent it foreclosed Powell; HUD issues discussed)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Aey, 2013-Ohio-5381 (7th Dist. Mahoning (2013)) (burden on bank to show HUD exceptions; defense to foreclosure)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Taylor, 2013-Ohio-355 (9th Dist. Ohio (2013)) (HUD regulations limit acceleration/foreclosure; cited for interpretation)
- Wells Fargo v. Phillabaum, 2011-Ohio-1311 (4th Dist. Ohio (2011)) (HUD compliance and foreclosure defenses; cited as persuasive)
- Garland v. Garland, 2014-Ohio-1173 (7th Dist. Ohio (2014)) (holding HUD compliance is a condition precedent to foreclosure (noting district split))
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary judgment standard; Civ.R. 56 burden shifting)
- Discover Bank v. Combs, 2012-Ohio-3150 (4th Dist. Ohio (2012)) (evidentiary materials for summary judgment)