{¶ 3} Appellee then filed a Motion tо Dismiss, alleging that Appellant did not have standing to file a foreclosure.
{¶ 4} On December 14, 2006, Appellee was granted leave to file аn Amended Answer Instanter. In this Answer, Appellee attached a check tendered to the mortgage holder, not Appellant, for the full amount of the mortgage dated December 12, 2006.
{¶ 5} On December 15, 2006, Appellant filed an Objection to the Motion to Dismiss, averring that the mortgage was assigned to Appellant on October 20, 2006 and recorded with the Stark County Recorder on October 25, 2006.
{¶ 6} The trial court granted the Motiоn to Dismiss. Thereafter, Appellee filed a Motion for Sanctions. The trial court set the Motion for Non-Oral Hearing. Appellant requested an oral argument on the Motion for Sanctions and filed a Response.
{¶ 7} On February 5, 2007, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry granting the Motion for Sanсtions and awarding attorneys fees. The Judgment Entry stated, "The Court has reviewed the motion for sanctions and the response filed herein. At the time of the filing of the within matter, the plaintiff was not a real party in interest and had no *3
legal right to file the within litigation. This is a pure simple fact in reviewing the pleadings, the documents submitted, and the other matters supplied by the respective sides. The Court finds that this constitutes a violation of Rule 11 and/or O.R.C.
{¶ 8} On February 6, 2007, the trial court denied the oral hearing.
{¶ 9} Winafeld appealed the trial court's decision, raising the following sole Assignment of Errоr:
{¶ 10} "The trial court erred in awarding Appellant [Winafeld] only a small fraction of the attorney's fees requested via his timely motion for sanсtions."
{¶ 11} Upon remand, the trial court conducted a hearing in this matter.
{¶ 12} By Judgment Entry dated December 5, 2007, the trial court re-affirmed its finding that Appellant Mainsource Bank was not the real party in interest, therein having no legal right to file the Complaint in this matter. The trial court found that Appеllant Mainsource's actions in filing said Complaint constituted a violation of Rule 11 and/or R.C.
{¶ 13} Appellant Mainsource now appeаls, assigning the sole error for review: *4
{¶ 16} Prior to addressing the merits of this assignment of error, we find it necessary to discuss the applicable standard of review. Both parties maintain the aрplicable standard of review is the abuse of discretion standard. We disagree with this conclusion pursuant to the case of Riston v. Butler,
{¶ 17} "* * * [W]e cоnclude that while the abuse-of-discretion standard is appropriate when reviewing a trial court's determination of whether a pаrty has engaged in conduct merely to harass or maliciously injure another, an issue that necessarily involves factual considerations, it is improper for reviewing a trial court's determination whether a party has pursued a legally groundless claim. Because legally grоundless frivolous conduct involves a question of law, we review it de novo." Id. at ¶ 22,
{¶ 18} Where a trial court has found the existence of frivolous conduct, the decision whether or not to assess a penalty lies within the sound discretion of the trial *5
court. Id. at 52,
{¶ 19} In the case sub judice, the trial court found that Appellant Mainsource Bank was not the real party in interest and therefore had no legal right to file the within litigation. The trial court found this to constitute a violation of Civ. R. 11 and R.C. §
{¶ 20} R.C. §
{¶ 21} Civ. R. 11 governs the signing of motions, pleadings and other documents and states as follоws in pertinent part:
{¶ 22} "The signature of an attorney or pro se party constitutes a certificate by the attorney or party that thе attorney or party has read the document; that to the best of the attorney's or party's knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. If a document is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken as sham and false and *6 the action may proceed as though the document had not been served. For a willful violation оf this rule, an attorney or pro se party, upon motion of a party or upon the court's own motion, may be subjected to appropriate action, including an award to the opposing party of expenses and reasonable attorney fees incurrеd in bringing any motion under this rule. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted."
{¶ 23} Based on the foregoing, we shall review this assignment of error under a de novo standard of review.
{¶ 24} The record in this matter establishes the assignment of the underlying mortgage in this case was nоt filed until after this foreclosure action was filed. (T. at 23). In fact, the assignment was dated after the date of the filing of the foreclosure action. Id.
{¶ 25} Based on the above, under a de novo review of the facts and the law, we conclude the trial court properly granted Appellee's motion for sanctions.
{¶ 26} Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 27} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas оf Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
*7Wise, J., Hoffman, P. J. and Edwards, J., concur.
*1Costs assessed to Appellant.