*1
[Cite as
Smith v. Bank of Am.
,
STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
RONALD SMITH, ET AL., )
)
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, )
) CASE NO. 11-MA-169 V. )
) OPINION BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. ) CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Court of Common
Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio Case No. 09CV1620 JUDGMENT: Affirmed
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs-Appellants Attorney Bruce M. Broyles
5815 Market Street Suite 2
Boardman, Ohio 44512 For Defendants-Appellees Attorney Anne Marie Sferra
Attorney Nelson M. Reid Attorney Justin W. Ristau 100 South Third Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-4291 JUDGES:
Hon. Gene Donofrio
Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
Hon. Mary DeGenaro
Dated: September 24, 2013
*2
[Cite as
Smith v. Bank of Am.
,
DONOFRIO, J. Plaintiffs-appellants Ronald and Nancy Smith (appellants) appeal the
decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court dismissing their amended complaint against defendants-appellees Bank of America, N.A., as Successor in interest to LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for certificate Holders of Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities LLC Asset-Back Certificate Series 2004-HES (appellee Bank of America), JP Morgan Chase Bank as Successor in interest to Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corporation (appellee Chase), and Encore Credit Corporation (appellee Encore) [1] . Appellants’ amended complaint contained claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violations of Ohio’s RICO statute. The case concerns the refinancing of the appellants’ home mortgage and related transactions. Since this case was disposed of below on a motion to dismiss, the only
matters that can be considered are the allegations contained in appellants’ amended complaint. As such, we will refer to the various paragraphs of the amended complaint by number. (¶ __.) According to the amended complaint filed on September 10, 2010, faced with mounting debt and decreased income, appellants sought to refinance the mortgages on their home (1625 Gully Top Lane, Canfield, OH 44406) in early 2004 in order to extract equity from their home for the purpose of paying those debts. (¶ 8.) Appellants sought a fixed-rate loan with the lowest interest rate for which they would qualify and a monthly payment plan that fit their budget. (¶ 8.) In January 2004, non- party Motion Financial, an agent of appellee Encore, offered appellants what they believed to be a fixed-rate mortgage loan for $528,500.00 and prepared for them a Uniform Residential Loan Application over the phone for them to sign later. (¶ 9.) The application indicated that appellants had a combined debt-to-income (DTI) ratio of 27% with base pay and quarterly bonus income listed on separate lines. (¶ 9.) According to appellants, Motion Financial provided them with a disclosure statement 1. While the lower court docket reflects that appellee Encore was successfully served with appellants’ amended complaint and other trial court filings and judgment entries entered in this case, it never filed a response or otherwise made an appearance. Also, it has not made an appearance in these appellate proceedings and has not filed an appellate brief.
concerning a fixed-rate loan, but did not provide them with a disclosure statement for an adjustable-rate loan or other available loan options. (¶ 11.)
{¶3}
In February 2004, Motion Financial informed appellants that the original
fixed-rate loan they had qualified for would not provide a sufficient loan-to-value ratio
so that appellants could extract equity in the form of cash from their home. (¶ 12.)
Motion Financial informed them that the only loan for which they would qualify and
allow them to extract equity would be an adjustable-rate loan requiring an appraised
value of their home of $630,000.00. (¶ 12.) Statewide Appraisal, enlisted by Motion
Financial, appraised the appellants’ home at $570,000.00, an amount insufficient to
fund the cash-out program. (¶¶ 14-15.) Statewide then performed a second appraisal
which resulted in an appraised value of $630,000.00, which enabled appellants to
qualify for the cash-out program under the adjustable-rate loan. (¶ 17.)
Closing for the refinance loan took place in March 2004. On the day of
closing, appellants alleged that Motion and appellee Encore presented to them a
second loan application that changed their income information so that both base pay
and bonus income were both listed as base pay. (¶ 20.) According to appellants, this
resulted in their debt-to-income ratio falling within federal guidelines for loan
approval. (¶ 21.) Appellants ultimately ended up in a sub-prime adjustable-rate
mortgage program with a 2-year fixed rate and an adjustable rate every 6 months
thereafter which they alleged was predatory and destined for default. (¶ 24.)
Appellee Encore contemporaneously assigned the note and mortgage
to LaSalle Bank National Association (LaSalle). Appellants defaulted on October 13,
2005, and LaSalle commenced foreclosure proceedings. LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v.
Smith , Mahoning C.P. No. 05CV3869. LaSalle obtained an order and decree of
foreclosure on January 12, 2007. Four years later, appellants filed separate motions
for reconsideration and relief from judgment, both of which the trial court denied.
They appealed those judgment entries to this court and this court affirmed. LaSalle
Bank Natl. Assn. v. Smith , 7th Dist. No. 11 MA 85,
state and federal claims against Motion Financial, appellee Encore, and Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corporation (BSRMC). Smith v. Encore Credit Corp. , N.D.Ohio No. 4:08CV1462. The federal court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. Smith v. Encore Credit Corp. , 623 F.Supp.2d 910 (N.D.Ohio 2008). Appellants then initiated this action on May 1, 2009. On September 10,
2010, they filed their amended complaint naming as defendants: appellee Bank of America; appellee Chase; appellee Encore; and John Does 1 – 10. In their amended complaint, appellants set forth claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violations of Ohio’s Pattern of Corrupt Activity Act (Ohio’s version of the Federal Anti-Racketeering Act – Ohio RICO or OPCA). The appellants’ declaratory relief and injunctive relief claims related
specifically to the foreclosure action initiated by LaSalle in LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v. Smith , Mahoning C.P. No. 05CV3869. Appellants wanted the trial court to set aside the foreclosure decree in the foreclosure case, arguing that LaSalle never possessed a full and unencumbered legal interest in the note and mortgage and, therefore, was not the real party in interest to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Appellants also argued that LaSalle falsely and fraudulently declared default since their obligation under the note was reduced or extinguished by LaSalle’s resale of the note or the payment of insurance benefits on the risk of default. For injunctive relief, appellants sought to have the court stay any further proceedings in the foreclosure action. The appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim related to their allegation that defendants-appellees perpetrated a scheme to defraud them by knowingly and intentionally concealing material information concerning the loan such as disclosures required under federal statutes and regulations, and misrepresented other information material to the loan. Appellants alleged that defendants-appellees performed a “bait and
switch,” leaving them with a “predatory” adjustable-rate loan that unjustly enriched defendants-appellees. They also alleged that defendants-appellees’ actions constituted a civil conspiracy and violated Ohio’s RICO Act. Appellee Bank of America and appellee Chase filed motions to dismiss
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). Appellee Bank of America argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellants’ declaratory and injunctive relief claims because of the jurisdictional priority rule. Under that rule, appellee Bank of America argued that the court that handled the foreclosure action had jurisdiction over the property in question first and, therefore, retained jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Appellee Bank of America also argued that appellants’ claim for declaratory relief was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel since it was already declared the real party in interest and that appellants were in default in the foreclosure action. Appellee Bank of America argued that all of appellants’ claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, opining that each of those claims should have been brought as counterclaims in the foreclosure action. Lastly, appellee Bank of America argued that appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, RICO claims should be dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As it pertained to appellants’ claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, appellee Bank of America pointed out that it did not become a holder of the note and mortgage until after closing. As for appellants’ RICO claim, appellee Bank of America argued that appellants failed to allege a pattern of corrupt activity. In its motion, appellee Chase argued that appellants’ declaratory and
injunctive relief claims should be dismissed as to it because appellee Bank of America, not appellee Chase, was the holder of the loan. Appellee Chase’s motion echoed appellee Bank of America’s motion with respect to the remaining claims.
{¶13} On May 31, 2011, the magistrate granted appellee Bank of America’s motion to dismiss. The magistrate concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction over appellants’ declaratory and injunctive relief claims because of the jurisdictional priority rule. The magistrate also found that declaratory relief was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Because of the related foreclosure action, the magistrate found that any claims against appellee Bank of America were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The magistrate found that appellants’ fraud and civil conspiracy claims were time-barred. In addition, the magistrate concluded that appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims failed on their merits because they did not relate to conduct by appellee Bank of America. The magistrate found no merit to appellants’ RICO claims against appellee Bank of America for similar reasons. The magistrate’s decision did not address Chase’s motion to dismiss, granting only appellee Bank of America’s motion. However, the magistrate nevertheless separately noted that it was dismissing appellants’ amended complaint on the merits, with prejudice to re-filing. On June 10, 2011, appellants filed purported objections to the
magistrate’s decision. Appellee Bank of America filed a memorandum in opposition. Appellants then filed a memorandum in support of and supplement to their objections. Appellee Bank of America filed a memorandum in opposition to that as well. On August 31, 2011, the trial court overruled appellants’ objections and
adopted the magistrate’s decision as its own. This appeal followed. Appellants raise two assignments of error in this appeal. However,
appellees Bank of America and Chase, who have filed a jointed responsive brief, initially take issue with appellants’ ability to raise any assignments of error due to the alleged inadequacy of their objections to the magistrate’s decision. Appellees Bank of America and Chase argue that appellants have not
preserved their appellate rights because they failed to state specific objections to the magistrate’s May 31, 2011 decision. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii) requires that objections to a magistrate’s decision be specific and state with particularity the grounds of objection. Additionally, “[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion * * * unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). Courts have held that general objections do not meet Civ.R. 53’s standard. See Thrower v. Akron, 9th Dist. No. 21518, 2003-Ohio- 5361; Rush v. Schlagetter , 4th Dist. No. 96CA2215, 1997 WL 193169 (Apr. 15, 1997). A review of appellants’ objections in this case reveals that they were
stated with sufficient particularity. Each of the five objections took issue with each of the five specific legal conclusions reached by the magistrate. While they were brief and not supported with any further argument or case law citations, they were nonetheless specific and stated with particularity the grounds for objection. The cases in which a party’s objections were found not specific enough are cases in which the objecting party merely states that they are objecting to factual determinations and/or legal conclusions reached by a magistrate. See , e.g. , Rogers v. Rogers , 9th Dist. No. 18280, 1997 WL 795820 (Dec. 17, 1997) (holding that the statement “Plaintiff wish [sic] to object to the Findings of Fact of the Magistrate, as well as errors of law” does not meet the specificity standard of Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b)). Turning to appellants’ assignments of error, their first assignment of error states:
The trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint against Encore Credit Corporation and JP Morgan Chase Bank as Successor in interest to Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corporation with prejudice. The magistrate’s decision and the trial court’s subsequent adoption of
that decision references only appellee Bank of America’s motion to dismiss. Yet the trial court proceeded to dismiss appellants’ amended complaint on the basis of that motion alone, without reference to the other named party defendants. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in dismissing its amended
complaint in its entirety without addressing or analyzing their claims as they related to appellee Encore and appellee Chase. In response, appellees Bank of America and Chase argue that since appellants did not raise this issue in their initial objections, their belated attempt to raise it in their supplemental memorandum, was untimely and, therefore, they waived the alleged error. Consequently, appellees Bank of America and Chase contend that this issue can be reviewed only for plain error. Appellees Bank of America and Chase argues that if the trial court’s omission of a reference to appellee Encore and appellee Chase was error; it was harmless error and not plain error. A review of the trial court’s decision in this regard does not reveal
reversible error. Appellee Chase filed its own motion to dismiss. Appellants had been served with that motion and filed a response to it. Appellee Chase asserted substantially similar grounds for dismissal as were asserted by appellee Bank of America. If the parties are given notice and an opportunity to respond, a trial
court may dismiss a complaint on its own motion pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See State ex rel. Edwards
v. Toledo City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. ,
opportunity to respond to appellee Chase’s motion to dismiss and did, in fact, file a response to that motion. Given that the trial court’s reasoning and analysis applied similarly to both appellee Bank of America and appellee Chase and the court’s authority to dismiss the complaint upon its own motion, the trial court’s failure to mention appellee Chase or appellee Encore by name was nonprejudicial to appellants and inconsequential under the circumstances of this case.
{¶25} Accordingly, appellants’ first assignment of error is without merit. Appellants’ second assignment of error goes to the merits of the magistrate’s decision and the five objections they raised to the legal conclusions reached therein. It states:
The trial court erred is dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.
Jurisdictional Priority In Count One of appellants’ amended complaint, they sought a
declaration that LaSalle was not the real party in interest in the foreclosure action and that the note in the foreclosure action was not in default. (¶¶ 56, 57, 64.) In Count Two, appellants sought to enjoin the sale of the property that was the subject of the foreclosure action. (¶ 70.) Because the foreclosure action had been filed concerning the subject property prior to the filing of this action, the magistrate concluded that the jurisdictional priority rule precluded it from considering appellants’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The jurisdictional priority rule provides that, as between state courts of
concurrent jurisdiction, the authority of the court which first properly acquires
jurisdiction over a matter retains exclusive jurisdiction until the matter is completely
adjudicated. State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle ,
were brought in the same court, appellants argue that the jurisdictional priority rule is
inapplicable, citing this court’s decision in Jarvis v. Wells Fargo Bank , 7th Dist. No. 09
CO 6,
the rule “does not apply when two complaints are filed in the same court.” Id . at ¶ 16, citing Bright v. Family Medicine Found., Inc. , 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1443, 2003-Ohio- 6652, ¶ 13. Since Jarvis involved two complaints filed in the same court, this court found that there was no jurisdictional issue that barred this court’s review of the second case in which the mortgagors sued the mortgagee. Here too, both the foreclosure action and appellants’ lawsuit were filed
in the same court – the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court. Therefore, under this court’s Jarvis decision, the magistrate erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over appellants’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because of the jurisdictional priority rule. However, as will be discussed, the magistrate advanced other valid reasons to dismiss those claims.
Res Judicata Appellants argue that the magistrate erred in finding that their claims
were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Appellants argue that their claims could not be barred under that doctrine because their claims were not compulsory counterclaims. “The doctrine of res judicata requires that a party to a lawsuit must
present every ground for relief in that action or be forever barred from asserting any
additional grounds.” Jarvis v. Wells Fargo Bank , 7th Dist. No. 09 CO 6, 2010-Ohio-
3283, ¶ 21, citing Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale , 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62, 558
N.E.2d 1178 (1990). “It has long been the law of Ohio that ‘an existing final judgment
or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or
might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.’” (Emphasis sic.) Id., citing Rogers v.
Whitehall ,
syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court, in explaining the doctrine of res judicata, held that
“[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based
upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject
matter of the previous action.” “The doctrine of res judicata applies to those who were
parties in the prior action, to those who were in privity with the litigants, and also to
those who could have joined the action and did not.” Jarvis at ¶ 22, citing Howell v.
Richardson ,
compulsory counterclaims pursuant to Civ.R. 13(A), which requires a party to raise all counterclaims against the opposing parties.” Jarvis at ¶ 23. Civ.R. 13(A) states in pertinent part:
A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. “Failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim constitutes a form of res
judicata and acts as a bar to subsequent litigation.” Jarvis at ¶ 28, citing Forney v.
Climbing Higher Ents., Inc.,
whether claims, “arise out of the same transaction or occurrence,” as required by
Rule 13(A). Id. at 278,
a declaration that LaSalle was not the real party in interest in the foreclosure action and that the note in the foreclosure action was not in default, and an injunction stopping the sale of the property that was the subject of the foreclosure action. In Counts Three through Six, they sought damages for an alleged fraud leading up to and during the closing on the loan, for alleged unjust enrichment related to the terms and conditions of the loan, and for an alleged civil conspiracy and unlawful enterprise between the various defendants related to the loan. Appellants’ amended complaint reflects that their claims arose “by virtue of a mortgage loan and related inter- temporal transactions[.]” (¶ 6.) Each of these claims arose in connection with the loan and is logically
related to LaSalle’s breach of the note and foreclosure of mortgage asserted in the foreclosure action. As this court observed in Jarvis , “[a]ny claims that [mortgagors] have that are logically related to the mortgage and foreclosure are compulsory counterclaims to the foreclosure action.” Jarvis at ¶ 32. Consequently, appellants’ failure to assert those claims in the foreclosure action resulted in them being barred by res judicata in this subsequent litigation. Accordingly, appellants’ second assignment of error is without merit.
While the magistrate’s application of the jurisdictional priority rule to appellants’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief was in error, the error was harmless. The magistrate’s additional reliance on the doctrine of res judicata as a bar to appellants’ claims in the present action served as a sufficient basis to justify dismissal of those claims. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Waite, J., concurs.
DeGenaro, P.J., concurs.