Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A business owner, who held a 50% stake in a group of skilled-nursing and real estate companies, personally guaranteed a $77 million loan arranged by a bank for those companies and others managed by his business partner. The loan was part of a refinancing effort after the companies’ prior lender declared a default. The owner signed both an initial guaranty agreement and a subsequent reaffirmation of that guaranty. Within a year, the companies defaulted on the new loan, and it was later revealed that the business partner had engaged in fraudulent check-kiting. The bank demanded repayment from the guarantors, including the owner, who then argued that he had been fraudulently induced into signing the guaranty because the bank failed to disclose material financial risks related to his partner and the companies.The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to the bank, finding that the owner had waived defenses under the guaranty agreement, that the bank owed no duty to disclose information about the companies’ financial condition, and that the owner could not establish fraudulent inducement. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that as a surety, the owner could assert a defense based on the bank’s alleged failure to disclose facts that materially increased his risk, adopting the “doctrine of increased risk” from Section 124(1) of the Restatement (First) of Security.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court’s decision. The court held that, under Ohio law, parties to an arm’s-length transaction do not owe each other a duty to disclose unknown facts that materially increase risk, unless a special relationship of trust or confidence exists. This rule applies regardless of whether one party is a guarantor or surety. The court reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank. View "Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider" on Justia Law

An Ohio tax lien on real property is enforced through a foreclosure action, which may result in a sale of the property at auction. If such a sale occurs and the price exceeds the amount of the lien, the excess funds may go to junior lienholders or the owner. If the tax-delinquent property is abandoned, an auction may not be required; the property may be transferred directly to a land bank, free of liens. When that happens, the county gives up its right to collect the tax debt, and any junior lienholders and the owner get nothing. The properties at issue were transferred directly to county land banks. US Bank owned one foreclosed property and claims to have held mortgages on the other two. US Bank alleges that at the time of the transfers, the fair market value of each property was greater than the associated tax lien and that the transfers to the land banks constituted takings without just compensation.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissals of the suits. US Bank lacks standing in one case; it did not hold the mortgage at the time of the alleged taking. As to the other properties, US Bank had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law. It could have redeemed the properties by paying the taxes; it could have sought transfers of the foreclosure actions from the boards of revision to the common pleas courts; it could have appealed the foreclosure adjudications to those courts. View "US Bank Trust, National Association v. Cuyahoga County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's decision ordering Defendant, who pleaded guilty to cashing seven forged checks at branches of three different banks, to pay restitution to the banks in the amount of the forged checks, holding that a bank that cashes a forged check and then recredits the depositor's account is a victim to which the forger can be required to pay restitution.In reversing the trial court's judgment, the court of appeals determined that the banks were not "victims" for purposes of Ohio Rev. Code 2929.18, the statute authorizing a trial court to order an offender to pay restitution to a "victim" who suffers an economic loss, but were instead third parties who had reimbursed the account holders, who were the true victims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the banks were victims of Defendant's fraud that suffered an economic loss thereby, and therefore, the trial court properly ordered Defendant to pay restitution to the banks under section 2929.18. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

Appellant filed two legal actions. Appellant filed a complaint in federal court alleging violations of his due process and equal protection rights. The federal district court dismissed the complaint, and Appellant appealed. Appellant also filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel an employee of JPMorgan Chase Bank to pay him a certain amount of money. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s claims were barred by res judicata, Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and Appellant failed to identify a clear legal right to the relief he sought. View "State ex rel. McQueen v. Weibling-Holliday" on Justia Law

Bank filed this foreclosure action against Debtors. Debtors counterclaimed, alleging that Bank did not own the promissory note or the mortgage at the time it commenced the foreclosure action. The trial court granted summary judgment for Bank, finding that Bank was the holder of the note and the assignee of the mortgage prior to the commencement of the action. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) only the current holder of both the note and the mortgage has standing to file a foreclosure action, and (2) genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Bank owned the note at the time it commenced the foreclosure action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when debt on a promissory note secured by a mortgage has been discharged by a bankruptcy court, the holder of the mortgage has standing to foreclose on the property and to collect the deficiency on the note from the foreclosure sale of the property; and (2) no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding any of the elements of Bank’s foreclosure action. View "Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Holden" on Justia Law

Appellant was granted a default judgment against Bank of America and filed a praecipe for a writ of execution. BAC Field Services filed a motion to stay the execution of judgment and a motion for relief from judgment. The trial court granted the motions. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to clarify its reasoning. Thereafter, Appellant moved the trial court to reinstate the default judgment. When the court had not ruled on the motion, Appellant filed this action requesting writs of prohibition barring the trial court from vacating the default judgment and barring BAC from appearing in the case. The court of appeals denied the writs. After Appellant appealed, the trial court again vacated the default judgment and responded to the court of appeals’ instruction to clarify its reasoning. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) declared the petition for a writ of procedendo moot because the trial court had issued a decision clarifying its reasons for vacating the default judgment; and (2) affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment denying Appellant’s petition for writs of prohibition because the court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to proceed. View "State ex rel. Haley v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioners executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. The notary acknowledgment on the mortgage was left blank. The mortgage was subsequently recorded with the county recorder. The interest in the mortgage was later assigned to Bank. Thereafter, Petitioners initiated a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and commenced an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid the mortgage as defectively executed. The bankruptcy court determined that its interpretation of Ohio Rev. Code 1301.401 would be dispositive in this case and certified to the Supreme Court questions of state law concerning whether section 1301.401 has an effect on the case. The Supreme Court answered that section 1301.401 applies to all recorded mortgages in Ohio and acts to provide constructive notice to the world of the existence and contents of a recorded mortgage that was deficiently executed under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.01. View "In re Messer" on Justia Law

In 2010, Bank filed a foreclosure action against Defendants for allegedly defaulting on a promissory note. The trial court granted Bank’s motion for summary judgment and issued a decree of foreclosure in Bank’s favor. Defendants appealed, asserting four assignments of error, none of which challenged the court’s conclusion that Bank had standing to bring the foreclosure suit. Rather than considering Defendants’ assignments of error, the court of appeals sua sponte considered the issue of standing and held that Bank lacked standing to bring this foreclosure action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bank had standing to file the foreclosure action against Defendants at the time that it filed the complaint in 2010. Remanded. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Horn" on Justia Law

Bank of America, N.A. filed a complaint in foreclosure against George and Bridget Kuchta, claiming to be the holder of a promissory note and assignee of the mortgage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank and entered a decree of foreclosure in its favor. The Kuchtas moved to vacate the summary judgment and decree of foreclosure, arguing that the bank lacked standing to commence the action because it did not prove ownership of the note and because the mortgage assignment was fatally flawed. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that standing is a jurisdictional matter and that Bank of America’s alleged lack of standing would warrant relief from judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a lack of standing cannot support a motion for relief from judgment, and lack of standing does not render a judgment void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Ohio Rev. Code 5721.25 permits a mortgage holder to redeem the mortgaged property when it is the subject of a tax foreclosure proceeding. Here, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (Vanderbilt) was the holder of both a promissory note and mortgage on certain property. Due to the mortgagors’ failure to pay taxes on the property, the county treasurer initiated a tax foreclosure proceeding for delinquent taxes. The question before the trial court was whether Vanderbilt had the right to redeem. The trial court concluded that Vanderbilt was a “person entitled to redeem” under section 5721.25, granted Vanderbilt’s motion to stay the confirmation of sale and to vacate and set aside the sheriff’s sale. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Vanderbilt was not entitled to redeem the property. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) “any person entitled to redeem the land” under section 5721.25 includes “any owner or lienholder of, or other person with an interest in” the property as set forth in section 5721.181; and (2) therefore, Vanderbilt, as a lienholder, was entitled to redeem the land. Remanded. View "In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens" on Justia Law