Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Arlington
2013 Ohio 4659
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Arlington signed a 2006 promissory note to TBW and gave MERS as nominee on the mortgage securing the note.
- MERS, as TBW’s nominee, assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo in 2007, with an assignment recorded March 26, 2007.
- Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure action January 11, 2008, attaching the note with two indorsements (TBW to Wells Fargo, and a blank indorsement to Wells Fargo).
- Arlington answered in 2008; summary judgment was denied in 2008 due to a dispute over notice of default, case stayed for bankruptcy, then resumed after stay.
- A corrective Assignment of Mortgage naming MERS as nominee for TBW was executed July 20, 2010 and recorded July 30, 2010; Wells Fargo did not supplement the record with this Correction.
- After a subsequent summary judgment in 2011, a foreclosure decree was entered June 21, 2011; Arlington appealed but dismissed the appeal, then moved in 2013 to vacate citing lack of standing in light of Schwartzwald.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wells Fargo had standing at filing to foreclose | Wells Fargo possessed the note and mortgage as holder at filing. | Standing was lacking due to the assignments at issue. | Wells Fargo had standing; standing cannot be cured post-filing. |
| Whether the foreclosure judgment was void for lack of standing | Judgment rests on a valid assignment chain and holder of the note/mortgage. | Judgment is void for lack of standing at filing. | Judgment not void; standing at filing supported by the prior assignment. |
| Whether Arlington’s claims are barred by res judicata | Appeals and Civ.R. 60(B) motion preclude later challenges to standing. | Could raise standing later due to jurisdictional nature. | Claims barred by res judicata; failure to appeal timely forecloses later raising of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 (Ohio 2012) (standing must exist at filing; post-filing events cannot cure standing)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Elliot, 2013-Ohio-3690 (Ohio 2013) (distinguishes standing from subject-matter jurisdiction; lack of standing not jurisdictional in all contexts)
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 2012-Ohio-5017 (Ohio 2012) (discusses timing of standing challenges as jurisdictional and non-appealable after judgment)
- Central Mortgage Co. v. Webster, 2012-Ohio-4478 (Ohio 2012) (holder of the note is the real party in interest in foreclosure)