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.

The Bank Of New York Mellon v. Hoffman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull

April 30, 2018

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f.k.a. THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWABS, INC., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
THOMAS R. HOFFMAN, JR., et al., Defendants, CHRISTINA D. HOFFMAN a.k.a. STEWART, Appellant.

          Civil Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CV 02160.

          James W. Sandy and Kevin S. Lampone, McGlinchey Stafford, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

          Christina D. Hoffman a.k.a. Stewart, pro se, (Appellant).

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.

         {¶1} Appellant, Christina D. Hoffman aka Stewart, appeals the trial court's decision striking her pro se motions seeking a cease and desist order, urging the trial court to reconsider its decree of foreclosure and confirmation of sale of the subject property, and asking the court to dismiss the case as illegal. Finding lack of final appealable order, we dismiss.

         {¶2} The Bank of New York Mellon, f.k.a. the Bank of New York, as trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc., asset-backed certificates series 2007-1 ("the Bank") filed a complaint in foreclosure against Thomas R. Hoffman, Jr., his unknown spouse, if any, Midland Funding, LLC, and the Trumbull County Treasurer relative to real property located at 3958 North Pricetown Road in Newton Falls, Ohio, alleging that Thomas was in default on his note and mortgage. Christina is not named as a party in the complaint, and the complaint does not state that the Bank could not discover the name of Thomas' wife. Civ.R. 15(D).

         {¶3} The Bank filed a judicial report on the same day as the complaint, which states that as of November 17, 2015, the title to the subject property was vested in Thomas, free and clear of all encumbrances. It also states that he is married and that there was a divorce action filed on January 23, 2015 between Thomas and Christina D. Hoffman.

         {¶4} Following unsuccessful service on Thomas and his "unknown spouse, if any, " at the subject address, the Bank secured service by publication.

         {¶5} Thereafter, the trial court granted default judgment in the Bank's favor on April 27, 2016 since Thomas, his unknown spouse, if any, and Midland Bank failed to answer the complaint. The default judgment references Christina D. Hoffman by name as a nonparty to the case and as a signator of an underlying mortgage deed.

         {¶6} The property was sold at sheriff's sale in November 2016, and the trial court confirmed the order of sale and ordered distribution on November 30, 2016.

          {¶7} Thirty days later, on December 30, 2016, Christina filed two pro se motions. This was her first appearance in the case. She asked for reconsideration and dismissal of the case as illegal. She alleges she is blind and that the Bank used her disability against her. She claims she was never served as a party and that counsel for the Bank rushed through the foreclosure process to exclude her from asserting her rights to the property.

         {¶8} In February of 2017, Christina filed three more pro se motions seeking a cease and desist order, urging the trial court to set aside the sale of the subject property, and asking the court to dismiss the Bank's case as illegal. In response, the Bank moved to strike all of Christina's filings in the case because she was not a party. Thereafter, Christina filed another motion to dismiss the case, which the Bank likewise moved to strike.

         {¶9} Christina filed another motion for the Bank to cease and desist, which it again moved the court to strike from the record. Christina attached numerous uncertified documents to her filings in support of her claim that her ex-husband was the named defendant and that she was awarded the subject property following the parties' divorce. She also averred that the Bank was aware of her existence as the rightful owner of the home and that she was denied the opportunity to defend the foreclosure action based on its failure to name her as a party.

         {¶10} On July 12, 2017, the trial court granted the Bank's motions to strike and ordered all filings submitted by Christina to be stricken from the record since she was not a party to the action and because the sale of the subject property was confirmed before her pro se motions were filed. This judgment entry also advises ...


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.