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.

Ditech Financial, LLC v. Global Capital Partners

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

May 22, 2018

Ditech Financial, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Global Capital Partners et al., Defendants-Appellants.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No. 16CV-6013)

         On brief:

          Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, Rick D. DeBlasis and William P. Leaman, for appellee.

          McGeorge Legal Services, LLC, and Anthony McGeorge, for appellant Global Capital Partners.

          DECISION

          KLATT, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Global Capital Partners, LLC ("Global"), appeals a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee, Ditech Financial, LLC ("Ditech"). For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment.

         {¶ 2} CitiMortgage, Inc., the original plaintiff in this case, filed a complaint in foreclosure on June 24, 2016. In the complaint, CitiMortgage alleged that June Strickland had entered into a note, which was secured by a mortgage on property located at 2376 Marcia Drive in Columbus, Ohio. CitiMortgage asserted that it had possession of the note, a default on the note had occurred, it had performed all the conditions precedent set forth in the note and mortgage, and it had accelerated the debt owed. CitiMortgage did not seek a personal judgment for breach of the note because Strickland had died on June 3, 2015. Instead, CitiMortgage requested only that the trial court foreclose on the mortgage, sell the property, and pay it out of the proceeds of the sale. CitiMortgage named Global as a defendant in the foreclosure action because, as trustee of the 2376 Marcia Drive Trust, Global was the property's titleholder at the time CitiMortgage filed suit.

         {¶ 3} Approximately four months after filing its complaint, CitiMortgage moved for an order substituting Ditech as plaintiff. CitiMortgage represented in its motion that Ditech had become the holder of the note and mortgage executed by Strickland. In an order dated October 18, 2016, the trial court granted CitiMortgage's motion and substituted Ditech as plaintiff in place of CitiMortgage.

         {¶ 4} On November 7, 2016, Ditech achieved service of the complaint and summons on Global. Global filed an answer to the complaint 29 days later, on December 6, 2016.

         {¶ 5} On January 23, 2017, Global moved for an order requiring the parties to participate in mediation. Global also requested that the trial court stay the proceedings until the completion of mediation. The trial court granted Global's motion in an order dated February 9, 2017.

         {¶ 6} Mediation occurred on March 30, 2017. In an order issued that same date, the magistrate overseeing the mediation reported that the parties were unable to reach a settlement.

         {¶ 7} Ditech moved for summary judgment in its favor on March 31, 2017. Global did not respond with a memorandum in opposition to Ditech's motion. Rather, Global filed a Civ.R. 56(F) motion asking the trial court to refuse Ditech's motion or, alternatively, to grant Global additional time in which to conduct discovery. Global informed the trial court that it needed 60 additional days in order to complete discovery and respond to Ditech's motion for summary judgment.

         {¶ 8} On June 5, 2017, the trial court issued a judgment denying Global relief under Civ.R. 56(F) and granting Ditech summary judgment. Global now appeals that judgment, and it assigns the following error:

The Trial Court abused its discretion by granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment because there were genuine issues of fact and Appellee was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law; furthermore, ...

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.