Transcript
UPDATE: OHIO FORECLOSURE CASES: LENDERS BEWARE By Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries In our previous article, two foreclosure cases from the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Ohio were discussed because of the stir they created among some real estate lawyers: In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 3232430 (N.D.Ohio, Oct. 31, 2007) and In re Foreclosure Actions, 2007 WL 4034554 (N.D.Ohio, Nov. 14, 2007) (collectively, the “Northern District Foreclosure Cases”). The court in both cases dismissed complaints to foreclose on mortgages because the plaintiff lender failed to submit to the court a copy of the assignment of the note and mortgage evidencing the plaintiff’s status as holder of the note and mortgagee under the mortgage. One Ohio case that was decided contemporaneously with the Northern District Foreclosure Cases but not discussed in the previous comment was In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp.2d 650 (S.D. Ohio, 2007). This decision from Judge Thomas M. Rose of United Stated District Court for the Southern District further bolstered the decisions issued by Judge Christopher A. Boyko and Judge Kathleen McDonald O’Malley. In re Foreclosure Cases involved 27 foreclosure actions filed in the Southern District of Ohio, in which the court questioned whether the plaintiff lenders had standing when the foreclosure complaint was filed and whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the cases at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. 521 F.Supp.2d at 652. In a sentiment that would be echoed through subsequent decisions in the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Rose stated: …this Court has the responsibility to assure itself that the foreclosure plaintiffs have standing and that subject-matter-jurisdiction requirements are met at the time the complaint is filed. Even without the concerns raised by the documents the plaintiffs have filed, there is reason to question the existence of standing and the jurisdictional amount. See Katherine M. Porter, Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims 3-4 (November 6, 2007), University of Iowa College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Available at SSRN: http:// ssrn. com/ abstract- 1027961 (“[H]ome mortgage lenders often disobey the law and overreach in calculating the mortgage obligations of consumers.... Many of the overcharges and unreliable calculations ... raise the specter of poor recordkeeping, failure to comply with consumer protection laws, and massive, consistent overcharging.”) Id at 654. Judge Rose provided plaintiff lenders thirty days to submit evidence showing that they had standing when the complaint was filed and that the court had diversity jurisdiction when the complaint was filed. Id at 654. Citing Judge Boyko’s decision, Judge Rose held that failure of plaintiff to proffer such evidence would result in dismissal without prejudice for re-filing if and when the plaintiff acquires standing and the diversity jurisdiction requirements are met. Id.
932896v.2
Judge Rose went on to acknowledge: This Court is well aware that entities who hold valid notes are entitled to receive timely payments in accordance with the notes. And, if they do not receive timely payments, the entities have the right to seek foreclosure on the accompanying mortgages. However, with regard the enforcement of standing and other jurisdictional requirements pertaining to foreclosure actions, this Court is in full agreement with Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio who recently stressed that the judicial integrity of the United States District Court is “Priceless.” Id at 655. Judge Rose decided four more cases in the month of November 2007, all of which echoed the same holding from the above referenced case and provided the plaintiff lenders thirty days to set forth that the plaintiff lender had standing and the court had jurisdiction at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. HBC Bank USA v. Rayford, 2007 WL 4190805 (S.D.Ohio, November 21, 2007) (To show standing in a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed.) MidFirst Bank v. Davenport, 2007 WL 4246271 (S.D.Ohio, November 29, 2007); NovaStar Mortg., Inc. v. Grooms, 2007 WL 4190796 (S.D.Ohio, November 21, 2007); NovaStar Mortg., Inc. v. Riley, 2007 WL 4190802 (S.D.Ohio, November 21, 2007). Since the Northern District Foreclosure Cases and Judge Rose’s decisions in the Southern District of Ohio, little in the foreclosure arena has changed in the federal district courts in Ohio. However, in the aftermath, some pundits have questioned whether these cases would have been dismissed had the complaints been filed in state court. Of course, whether in federal or state court, standing of the plaintiff to file suit is paramount. In order to satisfy standing requirements in Ohio state court, a party must establish that it is the real party in interest. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 77 (If a party is not the real party in interest, the party lacks standing to prosecute the action). Several Ohio appellate court decisions decided prior to the federal court decision discussed above appear to give the foreclosing lender some latitude in not attaching the assignment documents to the complaint. Nevertheless, it seems relatively clear that before it is entitled to judgment the plaintiff lender must be able to prove holder status of the note and mortgage. A 2007 case from an Ohio appellate court addresses the question as to whether ownership of the note and mortgage at the time of the filing of the complaint is essential to establish the plaintiff lender as the real party in interest. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Green, 156 Ohio App.3d 461 (Ohio App. 7 Dist.,2004.). In this action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff lender in a foreclosure action and the defendant property owner appealed alleging a lack of evidence that the plaintiff lender was the real party in interest. In the trial court, defendant property owner had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging a lack of evidence that plaintiff lender was the real party in interest given the exhibits to the complaint showed Check 'n Go as the
-2932896v.2
mortgage holder, not plaintiff lender. Id at 462. Plaintiff lender responded that Civ.R. 8 requires only a short and plain statement of the relief sought and so its statement that it is the current owner of the note and mortgage must be taken as true. Id. In response, plaintiff lender filed a motion for summary judgment declaring that because defendant property owner defaulted on the loan, plaintiff lender was entitled to acceleration of the loan and foreclosure. Id at 463. Lender plaintiff attached the affidavit of its vicepresident stating that the affiant had personal knowledge of the account, which was under her supervision, that the account was in default and that the copies of the note and mortgage were true and accurate copies. Id. Defendant property owner argued that the exhibits show Check 'n Go as the mortgage holder and that the affidavit does not state how or when plaintiff lender obtained the note and mortgage. Id. Defendant property owner attached exhibits from the county recorder's office showing an assignment of the note and mortgage to The Provident Bank (assignment in March 2001, recorded in April 2001) and to Long Beach Mortgage Company (recorded in July 2001), and stating that the recorder's office had no evidence of the assignment to plaintiff lender. Id. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s granting of a summary judgment for the plaintiff lender; however, the reason for the reversal was not because the plaintiff lender failed to establish that it was the real party in interest. The Court explained: Appellant cites cases that require a lawsuit to be brought in the name of the real party in interest. Appellant argues that the record does not show [plaintiff lender]'s interest in the note and mortgage…As long as a set of facts consistent with the complaint would allow plaintiff recovery, the court shall not grant a motion to dismiss. Beretta at ¶ 5. Here, [plaintiff lender]'s complaint states that it is the owner and holder of the promissory note and mortgage. It is well established that the real party in interest in such a case is the current noteholder/mortgage holder, which, due to the possibility of assignment, could be different from the original holder. See Conrad v. Rarey (1931), 125 Ohio St. 326, 331-332, 181 N.E. 444. See, also, 1970 Staff Note to Civ.R. 17(A). Under the aforestated premises behind motions to dismiss, we must thus presume that plaintiff lender's statement is true. If this statement is presumed true, then plaintiff lender is considered to be the real party in interest for purposes of the pretrial motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings. As such, the trial court correctly refused to grant the motion to dismiss at a time before the allegations of the complaint were required to be proven. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled. Id at 463-64. However, the court did find that defendant property owner’s evidence that she received correspondence from a third party lender claiming to be the current holder of the note and mortgage pertinent to the determination of the real party in interest. The Court said: Specifically, [defendant property owner] maintained throughout the proceedings that she did not believe that [plaintiff lender] was the real party in interest. She submitted documents from the recorder's office showing assignment of the
-3932896v.2
mortgage to two different companies in 2001 and noted that she found no entries showing assignment to [plaintiff lender]. She began receiving notices from an entirely different entity seeking to collect on the mortgage during the course of the proceedings, further confusing the issue of the real party in interest. [Plaintiff lender] submitted an affidavit…merely stating that the account is under the supervision of the affiant and the account is in default. The affidavit did not mention how, when, or whether [plaintiff lender] was assigned the mortgage and note. The trial court's grant of summary judgment and denial of the right to file a third-party complaint defeated the purpose of Civ.R. 17(A). That is, [defendant property owner] is not protected from multiple judgments on the same subject matter, and she may be precluded from asserting various counterclaims due to the judgment. Id at 467. Another Ohio decision did permit an assignment post-filing of the complaint to be determinate in establishing that the lender plaintiff was the real person in interest. Bank of New York v. Stuart, 2007 WL 936706 (Ohio App. 9 Dist., March 30, 2007). Defendant property owners appealed the trial court’s award of summary judgment to plaintiff lender averring that plaintiff lender was not a party in interest at the time the complaint was filed and that the assignment from America's Wholesale Lender to plaintiff lender, which was reduced to writing and filed in the trial court after plaintiff lender filed its complaint for foreclosure, was an insufficient means of advising the court and the parties that [plaintiff lender] was a party in interest. Id at *1. The appellate court disagreed, affirming the trial court’s summary judgment on behalf of plaintiff lender. Id. The court stated that “an action will not be dismissed [for lack of standing to prosecute the action] until a reasonable time has been allowed for the real party in interest to ratify the commencement of the action or to be either joined or substituted as a party.” Id at *2. The court further explained: In their memorandum opposing [defendant property owners’] motion for summary judgment, [defendant property owners] argued that [plaintiff lender] did not have a valid assignment of their mortgage when [plaintiff lender] filed its complaint. [Defendant property owners] also pointed out the fact that the assignment from America's Wholesale Lender to [plaintiff lender] had an effective date of more than five months after [plaintiff lender] filed its complaint for foreclosure…this Court has found case law to support appellee's claim that filing the assignment with the trial court before judgment was entered was sufficient to alert the court and appellants that [plaintiff lender] was the real party in interest. (citations omitted)…In the present matter, [defendant property owners] have failed to show that they were prejudiced by the assignment. In addition, the assignment did preclude America's Wholesale Lender from bringing an action against [defendant property owners]. Therefore, this Court finds that [plaintiff lender] was a real party in interest for purposes of filing the foreclosure action. Consequently, the trial court correctly awarded summary judgment in favor of [plaintiff lender]. Id at *2-3.
-4932896v.2
Ohio appellate cases clearly reject that assignments made after the trial court hearing will suffice to establish the plaintiff lender as the real property in interest. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, 2008 WL 697400 (Ohio App. 7 Dist., Mar 13, 2008). The appellate court in DLJ Mtge. Capital compared the case at hand to Washington Mutual (discussed earlier) and said: There is no document, on the record, showing an assignment to [plaintiff lender]. The only evidence on the record of an assignment to [plaintiff lender] is the affidavit of Jon Menz. However, the affidavit fails to mention how, when, or whether [plaintiff lender] was assigned the mortgage and note. As in Washington Mutual and First Union, the evidence in this case likewise did not establish that [plaintiff lender] is the owner of the note and mortgage. Attached to appellee's appellate brief is a copy of an assignment of the note and mortgage from Olympus Servicing LP to [plaintiff lender]. The file stamp on the assignment shows that it was recorded on February 22, 2007. But the trial court granted summary judgment on November 22, 2006. Although this assignment appears to establish [plaintiff lender]as the party in interest, there is no evidence of this assignment on the record. In fact, evidence of this assignment could not have existed at the time the court granted summary judgment because it had not yet occurred. Hence, it follows that the issue of whether [plaintiff lender] held a valid and secured lien after Olympus assigned the mortgage could not have been determined. Id at *3-4. The appellate court found that the trial court should have denied summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether or not plaintiff lender was the real party in interest since there was no evidence on the record of the assignment. See also Everhome Mtge. Co. v. Rowland, 2008 WL 747698 (Ohio App. 10 Dist., Mar. 20, 2008) (Court found that it could not consider a lender plaintiff’s evidence introduced on appeal of an assignment post-filing of the foreclosure complaint in order to establish that lender plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage because a reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it which was not part of the trial court’s proceedings.) While not yet the subject of reported appellate decisions, numerous Ohio trial courts, forced with a growing docket of foreclosure cases and organized efforts by numerous public officials to deal with what is being referred to as “Ohio’s foreclosure crisis,” including the Governor, the Attorney General, the Chief Justice and the Ohio State Bar Association, are dismissing or refusing to proceed with foreclosure action when the plaintiff does not attach a copy of the documents showing holder status of the note and mortgage. One Ohio court has promulgated additional rules for foreclosure actions within its jurisdiction. The court of common pleas for Summit County, Ohio issued an order on May 1, 2008 (effective June 1, 2008) incorporating new procedures for foreclosure cases. Order Misc. No. 325, issued by the judges of the court stated:
-5932896v.2
Due to the dramatic increase of foreclosure actions filed and the number of claims filed by parties other than the original mortgagee and note holder, the judges of the common pleas court – general division have determined that when a foreclosure case is filed the use of a Certificate of Readiness is necessary to allow that substantial justice be done and to ensure judicial efficiency. Current circumstances also require a modification of the time in which to file the Preliminary Judicial Report, shortening the time to file such preliminary judicial report from sixty days after filing the complaint to contemporaneous with the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. The Order amended the rules of practice and procedure of the court to incorporate the new timing of the filing of the Preliminary Judicial Report, which serves as evidence of the state of the record title of the real property, and the requirement of a Certificate of Readiness, which serves to demonstrate that the plaintiff is the real party in interest and the matter is ready to proceed against all necessary parties. The Certificate of Readiness requires counsel for the plaintiff to certify, among other things, that: (i) should the plaintiff be different from the designated owner of the original note and mortgage due to an assignment, copies of that assignment, and intervening assignments of such note and mortgage are attached to the complaint, and are similarly reflected within the preliminary judicial report; (ii) should the plaintiff be different from the designated owner of the original note and mortgage due to a name change or corporate merger, copies of said name change or merger are attached to the complaint, or an affidavit attesting to the name change or merger along with the dates of the name change or merger is also attached to the complaint; and (iii) all such assignments, name changes, or corporate mergers referred to above, and which are shown on the preliminary judicial report, bear a date prior to the filing date of the complaint in this matter. The form of certificate of readiness can be seen here. The Northern District Foreclosure Cases and subsequent cases have caused waves not just in Ohio. We are beginning to see the ripple effects in other jurisdictions. Such effects are evident in In re Nosek, 2008 WL 1899845 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass., Apr. 25, 2008), in which the Bankruptcy Court awarded Rule 9011 sanctions against the lender for falsely representing that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, when the lender had sold the note and mortgage five days after closing. The court found: Throughout most of these proceedings, Ameriquest and its attorneys represented that Ameriquest was the "holder" of the note of the note and mortgage…Unfortunately the parties' confusion and lack of knowledge, or perhaps sloppiness, as to their roles is not unique in the residential mortgage industry. (citations omitted)…Nor are "mistakes" and misrepresentations limited to the identification of roles played by various entities in this industry. In re Schuessler, 2008 WL 1747935, *3 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2008) (movant's motion misrepresented debtor's equity); Porter, Katherine M., "Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims" (citation omitted). As this Court has noted on more than one occasion, those parties who do not hold the note or mortgage and
-6932896v.2
who do not service the mortgage do not have standing to pursue motions for relief or other actions arising from the mortgage obligation. Schwartz, 366 B.R. at 270. The Court has had to expend time and resources, as have debtors already burdened in their attempts to pay their mortgages, because of the carelessness of those in the residential mortgage industry and the bombast this Court and others have encountered when calling them on their shortcomings. In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 3232430 at *3, n. 1. Id at *3-4. The court went on to find the lender’s actions sanctionable despite the lender’s lack of intent to mislead the property owner and the court: Virtually all of parties argue that there was no intent to mislead the Court. Because the standard to be applied is an objective one, the Court may quickly dispatch this argument. Intent is irrelevant. The argument that the assignment of the note and mortgage was a matter of public record and therefore the Debtor knew or should have known of Norwest's identity is relevant but disingenuous, indeed even arrogant, since many of these same parties asserting this position allege they had no way of knowing about the assignment. They seek to bind the Debtor to one standard and themselves to a much lower one…[This Court] will not tolerate a lender's or servicer's disregard for the rules that govern litigation, including contested matters, in the federal courts. It is the creditor's responsibility to keep a borrower and the Court informed as to who owns the note and mortgage and is servicing the loan, not the borrower's or the Court's responsibility to ferret out the truth. Id at *5. The judicial admonishment of lenders with sloppy housekeeping persists. We are likely to see more and more ripples outside of Ohio as the number of foreclosures continues to increase.
****************** Stephen R. Buchenroth is a partner in the Columbus office of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP and a former head of the firm’s real estate and commercial practice group. He is a former Chairman of the Real Property Section of the Ohio State Bar Association and a member of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers. Gretchen Jeffries is an associate in the Columbus office of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP and a member of its commercial and real estate group. Ms. Jeffries is a graduate of The Ohio State University and The University of Texas School of Law.
-7932896v.2 06/13/2008 Columbus 10429750.3