U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSN. Appellee
BRAD A. HULL, et al. Defendants and LISA A. HULL Appellant
FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 12CV178512
E. DANN and EMILY WHITE, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
A. KING and TERRY W. POSEY, JR., Attorneys at Law, for
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Appellant, Lisa Hull, nka Pavkovich, appeals the judgment
entered in favor of Appellee, U.S. Bank, National Association
("the Bank"), in the Lorain County Court of Common
Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms.
The Bank filed a foreclosure action against Lisa and Brad
Hull, the mortgagors, in November 2012. At the time of the
foreclosure filing, Lisa and Brad Hull were involved in
Ms. Hull's divorce attorney filed an answer on her behalf
on March 7, 2013. In this answer, she admitted the
allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint which stated
"[the Bank] is in possession of, and entitled to
enforce, a note executed by the defendants, Brad A. Hull and
Lisa A. Hull." A month later, Mr. Hull's divorce
attorney filed an answer on behalf of both of them. Their
joint answer denied for want of knowledge that the Bank had
possession of and was entitled to enforce the note. Neither
answer asserted standing as an affirmative defense.
After a number of pretrials, the Bank filed a motion for
summary judgment. The Bank supported its motion for summary
judgment with the affidavit from a representative of the
Bank's servicing agent. As to standing, the
representative averred that "[a]t the time of the filing
of the complaint * * *, and to date, [the Bank] * * *, has
been in possession of the Promissory Note." The
defendants failed to file a response brief.
On October 24, 2013, the magistrate granted the Bank's
summary judgment and the judge adopted the magistrate's
decision and entered a decree of foreclosure. No appeal was
filed. Sheriffs sales were scheduled and canceled during the
next two years, three times because the Bank was
"reviewing the file for loss mitigation options"
with the homeowners and one time due to an investor-directed
Twenty-six months after the trial court granted summary
judgment, Ms. Hull filed a motion to set aside the judgment
and requested a hearing. The Bank opposed the motion. The
trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
Ms. Hull timely appeals, raising one assignment of error for