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.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Assocation v. Pollard

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

December 5, 2019

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MELVIN POLLARD, Defendant-Appellant.

          Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-18-898687

          McGlinchey Stafford, and James W. Sandy, for appellee.

          Melvin Pollard, pro se.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE

         {¶ i} Defendant-appellant, Melvin Pollard, appeals the trial court's order granting plaintiff-appellee, Wells Fargo Bank National Association, summary judgment. He raises five assignments of error for our review:

1. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment against the defendant as there are genuine issues of material fact.
2. The trial court committed prejudicial error by disregarding O.R.C. 1343.01(A) that governs the interest chargeable on the Note, after Plaintiff conceded to, by failing to address claim.
3. The trial court committed prejudicial error in disregarding the forged signatures of documents used as proof of standing.
4. The trial court committed prejudicial error in accepting summary judgment affidavit as qualifying where nature of facts are question and conclusory.
5. The trial court committed prejudicial error in disregarding claim of notice of right to cancel that was conceded to, by failing to address. [sic]

         {¶ 2} Finding no merit to his assignments of error, we affirm.

         I. Procedural History and Factual Background

         {¶ 3} On June 1, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a complaint for money damages and foreclosure against Pollard and his unknown spouse, and the United States of America. The complaint sought forfeiture of property located at 5149 Fowler Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio and alleged that Wells Fargo was the holder in possession of a promissory note and the mortgage deed for the property and that Pollard was in default of payment on the note and mortgage in the amount of $40, 763.03, plus interest at the rate of 11.54% per annum since December 16, 2016. In its complaint, Wells Fargo stated that it included the United States of America as a defendant because it "has or claims to have an interest in the premises by virtue of Forfeiture Agreement and Notice of Lien," which were both attached to the complaint.

         {¶ 4} Pollard filed his answer and a counterclaim against Wells Fargo. He stated that he was requesting $23, 776.20 to be returned to him, alleging that it was "collected by Nationstar/Mr. Cooper under false pretense as being entitled to Note payments since November 2013 said transfer from Bank of America, as Defendant's counterclaim."

         {¶ 5} In July 2018, Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment against all defendants.

         {¶ 6} In August 2018, Wells Fargo moved for default judgment against Pollard's unknown spouse. Pollard opposed both motions and filed his own motion for summary judgment.

         {¶ 7} On August 7, 2018, the United States of America filed an answer, admitting that it had an interest in the property on Fowler Avenue by virtue of a forfeiture agreement, objecting to the release of any lien of the United States not included in the complaint, and reserving its right to redeem.

         {¶ 8} On December 17, 2018, the magistrate (1) found that Wells Fargo was in possession of the promissory note for the property, had the right to enforce the note, and had standing to bring its complaint; (2) disagreed with Pollard's argument that "the interest rate in his note causes him not to be in default" and was in contravention with R.C. 1343.01; and (3) determined that Wells Fargo's affidavit and supporting evidence was sufficient to meet its burden under Civ.R. 56(E) and that Wells Fargo "demonstrated all of the necessary elements of foreclosure." The magistrate granted Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment against Pollard, granted Wells Fargo's motion for default judgment against Pollard's unknown spouse, and denied Pollard's motion for summary judgment. The magistrate's decision concluded that under the promissory note, Pollard owed Wells Fargo $40, 763.03, plus interest at the rate of 11.54% per annum from December 6, 2016. The magistrate determined that any right, title, interest, or lien that the United States of America had to the property was subsequent to Wells Fargo's lien.

         {¶9} Pollard filed objections to the magistrate's decision, but on February 6, 2019, the trial court adopted the magistrate's ...


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.