Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Salahuddin
165 N.E.3d 761
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Ameena Salahuddin obtained an FHA-insured mortgage in 2008 and later defaulted; Wilmington Savings Fund Society (assignee) filed foreclosure in 2017.
- Wilmington moved for summary judgment supported by a servicer affidavit (Michael Surowiec) attaching the Note, Mortgage, chain of assignments, a February 23, 2016 notice of default, and a loan payment history.
- Salahuddin opposed, asserting Wilmington and predecessors failed to comply with HUD regulations (24 C.F.R. §§203.602, 203.604) — specifically that delinquency notices were not on HUD-approved forms or accompanied by required HUD brochures and that a required face-to-face meeting did not occur.
- The trial court struck Salahuddin’s oversized/late reply, denied leave to file an amended reply instanter, granted Wilmington summary judgment and foreclosure, and dismissed Salahuddin’s counterclaim.
- On appeal the court affirmed most rulings but reversed in part and remanded solely on the narrow issue that Wilmington failed to produce Civ.R. 56 evidence establishing compliance with 24 C.F.R. §203.602 (the HUD-form delinquency notice requirement); the court accepted Wilmington’s uncontested showing that the §203.604 face-to-face requirement was excused by the 200-mile exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilmington) | Defendant's Argument (Salahuddin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Compliance with HUD delinquency-notice rule (24 C.F.R. §203.602) | Movant submitted default letters and claimed they satisfied HUD notice requirements. | Borrower argued letters lacked HUD-approved form and required brochure; therefore conditions precedent not met. | Held: Genuine issue remains — Wilmington failed to supply Civ.R. 56 evidence that notices were on HUD-supplied/approved form; remanded for further proceedings on §203.602 compliance. |
| 2) Face-to-face meeting requirement (24 C.F.R. §203.604) | Movant showed servicer and lender have no office within 200 miles, invoking the §203.604(c)(2) exception. | Borrower contended no face-to-face occurred and was required. | Held: Wilmington established the 200-mile exception; face-to-face was not required here. |
| 3) RESPA and TILA claims (statutes of limitation) | Movant argued claims are time-barred. | Borrower claimed predecessors failed to respond to qualified written requests (RESPA/TILA). | Held: Borrower’s RESPA and TILA claims were barred by their respective limitations periods; summary judgment for Wilmington affirmed on these claims. |
| 4) Fraud / accounting / overpayments | Movant relied on payment history showing balance due. | Borrower asserted overpayments (~$5,934.96) and alleged accounting/fraud. | Held: Borrower did not plead fraud with required particularity nor submit sufficient evidentiary proof of alleged overpayments; summary judgment for Wilmington affirmed as to fraud/accounting. |
| 5) Trial-court denial of leave to file amended reply and page-limit strike | Movant urged enforcement of local rules and timeliness. | Borrower argued denial was improper and prejudiced her case. | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; pro se status does not excuse noncompliance; denial affirmed. |
| 6) Jury demand | Movant stated a jury demand does not defeat summary judgment. | Borrower asserted right to jury wa not honored. | Held: Request for jury does not by itself defeat properly granted summary judgment; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist. 1997) (standard of appellate review of summary judgment).
- Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp., 122 Ohio App.3d 100 (1997) (appellate court stands in trial court’s shoes on summary judgment).
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (plaintiff moving for summary judgment must initially identify record parts showing no genuine issue; burden-shifting framework).
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (summary judgment standard and Civ.R. 56 review).
- Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134 (1997) (purpose and role of summary judgment).
- Maust v. Bank One of Columbus, N.A., 83 Ohio App.3d 103 (10th Dist. 1992) (appellate summary judgment review principles).
- Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (4th Dist. 1993) (de novo review and standards).
- Sutton Funding, LLC v. Herres, 188 Ohio App.3d 686 (2010) (pleading and dismissal principles regarding claims not properly pled).