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.

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. of Americas v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

February 15, 2018

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO. OF AMERICAS PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
DAVID W. JONES, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

         Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-16-866003

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS Sam Thomas, III, Esq. Sam Thomas, III Esq. & Associates.

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE DEUTSCHE BANK COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT LOANS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-QS9 Ted A. Humbert Charles V. Gasior Ashley E. Mueller Jason A. Whitacre Clunk, Paisley, Hoose Co., L.P.A.

          BEFORE: Blackmon, J., S. Gallagher, P.J., and Celebrezze, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.

         {¶1} Appellants David Jones ("Jones") and Caroline Jones (collectively referred to as "the Joneses") appeal the trial court's judgment granting foreclosure in favor of appellee Deutsche Bank Trust Co. of Americas ("Deutsche Bank"). The Joneses assign the following three errors for our review:

I. The trial court erred to the prejudice of [the Joneses] by granting [Deutsche Bank's] motion for summary judgment even though [Deutsche Bank] failed to prove that it satisfied all conditions precedent mandated by the National Housing Act of 1934 (912 U.S.C.1701 et seq.) and 42 U.S.C.
II. Reviewing [Deutsche Bank's] motion for summary judgment de novo, the record is clear and convincing that the trial court erred to the prejudice of [the Joneses] by granting [Deutsche Bank's] motion for summary judgment.
III. The trial court erred to the prejudice of [the Joneses] by granting [Deutsche Bank's] motion for summary judgment based upon the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding [Deutsche Bank's] failure to provide sufficient evidence of entitlement to foreclosure and/or damages.

         {¶2} Having reviewed the record and relevant law, we affirm the trial court's decision. The apposite facts follow.

         {¶3} On May 23, 2006, the Joneses purchased a multifamily property located on Glenmont Road in Cleveland. Jones signed a note payable to First Magnus Financial Corporation ("First Magnus") for $150, 000. The record indicates that an allonge payable to the order of Deutsche Bank as Trustee ("Deutsche Bank Trustee") for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. ("RALI") was attached to the note. The Joneses also executed a mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") acting solely as nominee for First Magnus. On August 29, 2012, the mortgage was assigned from First Magnus to Deutsche Bank Trust Co. ("Deutsche Bank Trust") as trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. ("RALI"), and duly recorded. Later, in April 2016, the mortgage was assigned from Deutsche Bank Trust to Deutsche Bank, and duly recorded.

         {¶4} On July 11, 2016, Deutsche Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure and other equitable relief, alleging that due to nonpayment, the loan balance of $142, 475 had accelerated. Deutsche Bank also alleged that all conditions precedent to seeking foreclosure were satisfied.

         {¶5} On January 30, 2017, Deutsche Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by the copies of the mortgage, note endorsements and assignments, and an affidavit from Deutsche Bank Trust's loan service officer, Jesse Rosenthal ("Rosenthal"). Rosenthal averred that the last payment on the loan was received in 2012, and the balance of $142, 475 was now due. In opposition, the Joneses argued that Deutsche Bank failed to comply with conditions precedent to seeking foreclosure under regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). The Joneses also alleged that Deutsche Bank lacked standing to enforce the note and mortgage, and that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating nonpayment.

         {¶6} On March 23, 2017, the magistrate issued a decision granting Deutsche Bank summary judgment. No objections were filed, and on April 14, 2017, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision.

         Conditions Precedent

         {¶7} In the first assigned error, the Joneses argue that Deutsche Bank did not satisfy conditions precedent to filing its foreclosure action because it failed to conduct a face-to-face meeting with them as required under HUD regulations, set forth in 24 C.F.R. 203.604(b).

         {¶8} Loans governed by or incorporating HUD regulations must comply with 24 C.F.R. 203.604(b). Fed. Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Herren, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105088, 2017-Ohio-8401, ¶ 39; Bank of Am. v. Allen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105473, 2017-Ohio-7726, ¶ 19. In relevant part, these regulations state:

The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are unpaid. If default occurs in a repayment plan arranged other than during a personal interview, the mortgagee must have a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable attempt to arrange such a ...

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.