Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
UNITED GUARANTY RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA Plaintiff-Appellee
STEPHANIE HALL Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Trial Court Case No.
J. MASON, Atty. Reg. No. 0076645, J. BLAKE THOMAS, Atty. Reg.
No. 0082821, and JOSEPH M. RUWE, Atty. Reg. No. 0070141,
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
STEPHANIE HALL, Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
1} Stephanie Hall appeals pro se from the trial
court's entry of summary judgment against her on appellee
United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North
Carolina's complaint to collect on a mortgage-related
2} In her sole assignment of error, Hall contends
the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against
her on the debt. She argues that United Guaranty was named as
a party in a 2011 foreclosure action related to her mortgage
debt, that United Guaranty chose not to respond in the
foreclosure action (which was filed by another lender), and
that United Guaranty was in default. Hall asserts that R.C.
2329.08 precludes United Guaranty from obtaining a judgment
against her now because more than two years have passed since
the foreclosure action.
3} The record reflects that United Guaranty filed
its complaint against Hall in July 2018, seeking a judgment
of $21, 944.31 plus interest, which represented the amount
allegedly due under a lending agreement. (Doc. # 1).
Accompanying the complaint were a 2006 promissory note signed
by Hall and a 2010 assignment of that note to United
Guaranty. The note stated that it was secured by a second
mortgage on real estate located at 5950 Algoma Street in
Dayton, Ohio. Hall filed a pro se answer in which she
asserted that the note held by United Guaranty had been paid
off during a refinancing. (Doc. # 20). In answers to
interrogatories, Hall later asserted that United Guaranty had
received $1, 000 to "settle" her debt on the
promissory note during a sheriff's sale of her home.
(Doc. # 27).
4} United Guaranty moved for summary judgment in
February 2019. (Doc. # 30). Accompanying the motion were an
affidavit and supporting documentation detailing the history
of Hall's loans, United Guaranty's promissory note
and second mortgage, and the sale of her home through a
sheriffs sale. United Guaranty's evidence showed that
Wells Fargo, the first mortgage holder, filed a February 2010
foreclosure action against Hall and others seeking to
foreclose on the Algoma Street property. The Mortgage
Electronic Registration System, Inc. ("MERS") was
joined in the foreclosure action, acting solely as the
nominee of the holder of the second mortgage that secured
United Guaranty's note, but MERS did not appear and was
found in default. United Guaranty's evidence showed that
the real estate was purchased by Wells Fargo at a January
2011 sheriff's sale, and the second mortgage securing
United Guaranty's note was discharged. United Guaranty
presented evidence that neither it nor its predecessors in
interest received any money due to the sheriff's sale or
Wells Fargo's foreclosure action. United Guaranty also
presented evidence that it never had refinanced the debt
represented by Hall's promissory note and that it had no
knowledge of any prior holders of the note ever refinancing
5} In response to the summary judgment motion, Hall
appeared to acknowledge that the promissory note held by
United Guaranty had not been refinanced out of existence.
(Doc. #32 at 2). But she still claimed to have been
"told" by someone that United Guaranty's
predecessor in interest would receive $1, 000 to settle the
debt. Hall suggested that United Guaranty should contact
Wells Fargo to receive any additional money owed.
6} On April 5, 2019, the trial court filed an entry
awarding United Guaranty summary judgment on its complaint.
(Doc. # 39). This appeal followed.
7} Hall's single assignment of error states:
"The trial court abused its discretion by granting the
Appellee a Summary Judgment even though in 2011 Appellee was
included in the foreclosure, and chose not to respond and as
a result was in default EXHIBIT C. It has been more than two
years O.R.C. 2329.08."
8} Hall's entire substantive argument is as
The trial court erred by granting Appellee summary judgment.
Appellee was included doing [sic] the foreclosure process in
2011, but chose not to respond. Therefore, being barred from
any claim. Seven years later Appellee filed for summery [sic]
judgment and was granted the judgment. The statute of
limitations for recovery of a deficienct [sic] balance
relating to a mortgage foreclosure is two ...