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.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Kerwood

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

August 2, 2018

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Brad A. Kerwood et al., Defendants-Appellees, Global Capital Partners, LLC, Trustee of the 1794 Audrey Road Trust, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County C.P.C. No. 17CV-3232 Court of Common Pleas

         On brief:

          Reisenfield & Associates, LLC, and John R. Tarter, for appellee U.S. Bank Trust N.A., as Trustee, LSF9 Master Participation Trust.

          Atkins & Atkins, Attorneys at Law, LLC, and Anthony McGeorge, for appellant.

         Argued:

          John R. Tarter.

          DECISION

          TYACK, J.

         {¶ 1} Global Capital Partners, LLC, Trustee of the 1794 Audrey Road Trust ("Global Capital Partners") is appealing from the granting of summary judgment in a foreclosure case. It assigns a single error for our consideration:

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.

         {¶ 2} Civ.R. 56(C) states that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if:

[T]he pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion.

         {¶ 3} Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate only where: (1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621, 629 (1992), citing Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 65-66 (1978).

         {¶ 4} "Even the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the evidentiary materials, such as affidavits and depositions, must be construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 482, 485 (1998). Summary judgment is a procedural device to terminate litigation, so it must be awarded cautiously with any doubts resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-59 (1992).

         {¶ 5} De novo review is well established as the standard of review for summary judgment. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). We stand in the shoes of the trial court and conduct an independent review of the record applying the same summary judgment standard. See Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio ...


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.