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.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Chappell

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

May 14, 2018

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON Appellee
v.
JOSEPH E. CHAPPELL, ET AL. Appellants

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 12CV175335

          ANDREW J. GERLING, Attorney at Law, for Appellants.

          LAURA C. INFANTE and JASON A. WHITACRE, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          DONNA J. CARR, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Appellants, Joseph and Rebecca Chappell, appeal the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} On February 21, 2012, Bank of New York Mellon filed a foreclosure action against Joseph and Rebecca Chappell in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. The action concerned the property located at 17814 West Rd., Wellington, Ohio. In addition to claims seeking recovery on the note and mortgage, the complaint also included a claim for reformation of the legal description of the property. After unsuccessfully moving the trial court to dismiss the complaint, the Chappells filed an answer as well as four counterclaims against the Bank. The Chappells alleged that the Bank had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Sales Practices Act. The Chappells further alleged counts of common law fraud and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion.

         {¶3} The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The Chappells filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and the Bank replied thereto. A magistrate issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss. The Bank filed timely objections to the magistrate's decision. The Chappells filed a brief in response to the objections. Thereafter, the trial court issued a journal entry adopting the magistrate's decision in part, but sustaining several of the Bank's objections and granting the motion to dismiss with respect to Chappell's claims for fraud and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. Subsequently, the Bank obtained summary judgment against the Chappells on the remaining counterclaims.

         {¶4} The matter proceeded to a trial before a magistrate on the underlying foreclosure action. The Bank offered numerous exhibits at trial in addition to the testimony of a custodian of business records. Mr. Chappell testified on his own behalf. On December 29, 2016, the magistrate issued a decision granting judgment in favor of the Bank on its claims relating to the note and mortgage. With respect to the reformation claim, the magistrate determined that reformation was unnecessary and that the property was adequately described in the deed. In reaching its decision on the underlying foreclosure, the magistrate noted that Mr. Chappell's testimony lacked credibility given that his testimony at trial contradicted his prior deposition testimony.

         {¶5} The Chappells filed numerous objections to the magistrate's decision. On March 16, 2017, the trial court issued a journal entry overruling the Chappells' objections and adopting the magistrate's decision.

         {¶6} On appeal, the Chappells raise two assignments of error.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT ...


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.