Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Blankenship

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District

June 21, 2013

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, etc. Plaintiff
v.
Ronald M. Blankenship Cross-Appellee
v.
The Mortgage Firm, Inc., et al. Cross-Appellant

Trial Court No. CI0200906186

Andrew D. Neuhauser and Richard Alston, for cross-appellee Ronald M. Blankenship.

Robert H. Eddy, Eric Wineland and Colleen A. Mountcastle, for cross-appellant Shore Financial Services, d.b.a. United Wholesale Mortgage.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

PIETRYKOWSKI, J.

{¶ 1} This is the second of two appeals considered by this court from a July 11, 2011 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas in foreclosure proceedings brought by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP ("BAC") against Ronald M. Blankenship. A detailed history of the litigation is set forth in our earlier decision and judgment in BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Blankenship, 6th Dist. No. L-11-1199, 2013-Ohio-2360.

{¶ 2} This appeal is brought by third-party defendant/cross-appellant Shore Financial Services d.b.a. United Wholesale Mortgage ("Shore Financial") against Ronald M. Blankenship (the defendant/third-party plaintiff and cross-appellee).

{¶ 3} The dispute arises out of a mortgage loan used to refinance Blankenship's home. Shore Financial was the original mortgagee on Blankenship's loan. Mortgage Firm, Inc. ("Mortgage Firm") was the loan broker. The loan was an FHA loan. Blankenship borrowed $87, 290 and executed an FHA Multistate Fixed Rate Note and an FHA Ohio Open-end Mortgage with MERS. The Federal Housing Administration ("FHA") insures the note and mortgage.

{¶ 4} In its complaint, BAC asserted rights as a holder of the note and alleged that Blankenship was in default of his obligations under the note and mortgage securing the note. Blankenship filed a counterclaim against BAC and a third-party complaint against Shore Financial and Mortgage Firm.

{¶ 5} In a judgment filed on March 24, 2011, the trial court ruled on a series of motions filed by the parties. In the judgment, the trial court:

1. Granted Blankenship's motion to dismiss, with prejudice, BAC's action for foreclosure;
2. Dismissed, with prejudice, the counterclaim of Blankenship against BAC;
3. Dismissed, with prejudice, the third party complaint brought by Blankenship against Shore Financial and Mortgage Firm;
4. And overruled the motion for summary judgment filed by Shore Financial against Blankenship as moot.

{¶ 6} In the July 11, 2011 judgment, the trial court found no just cause for delay with respect to the March 24, 2011 judgment. Afterwards BAC, Blankenship, and Shore Financial each filed notices of appeal from the judgment. By stipulation, BAC and Blankenship dismissed their appeals against each other on May 14, 2012. The stipulated dismissal left two appeals for determination: Blankenship's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.