Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pinkston

2025 Ohio 3178

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: 2025CA0030
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pinkston, 2025-Ohio-3178.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST Case No. 2025CA0030 CO., AS TRUSTEE IN TRUST FOR REGISTERED HOLDERS OF LONG Opinion & Judgment Entry BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-1, ASSET-BACKED Appeal from the Court of CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-1, Common Pleas of Richland County, Case No. 2024-CV-0031 N Plaintiff - Appellee Judgment: Affirmed -vs- Date of Judgment: September 5, 2025 MARILYN PINKSTON, et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

(EARL L. JEFFERSON,

Defendant-Appellant)

BEFORE: Andrew J. King, Robert G. Montgomery, and David M. Gormley, Judges

APPEARANCES: Earl L. Jefferson briefed the case on his own behalf as Defendant- Appellant.

Gormley, J.

{¶1} Appellant Earl L. Jefferson challenges an order granting summary judgment

in favor of plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in this foreclosure case. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Key Facts

{¶2} Deutsche Bank’s action for foreclosure centers on a promissory note and

mortgage signed by James H. Pinkston in 2004. Mr. Pinkston was the sole record owner

of real property located at 859 Dickson Parkway in Mansfield, Ohio when he signed the $114,000 note. In the mortgage that was executed the same day, Mr. Pinkston is listed

as “a divorced man,” although evidence in the record indicates that he was married at the

time to Marilyn Pinkston. The lender on both the note and the mortgage was Long Beach

Mortgage Company, and the mortgage was later assigned to Deutsche Bank.

{¶3} Deutsche Bank filed a complaint for in-rem foreclosure in 2024 alleging that

the note was in default and that an unpaid balance of $85,841.52 was owed, plus interest

and other fees and costs. According to the bank’s complaint, James Pinkston is now

deceased. Marilyn Pinkston was initially named as a defendant in the case, but Deutsche

Bank later amended the complaint to remove Mariilyn’s name because she too is now

deceased. Added as a defendant in the bank’s amended complaint was Earl L. Jefferson

and his unknown spouse, if any. Jefferson (who is the son of Mrs. Pinkston and the

stepson of Mr. Pinkston) inherited the Dickson Parkway property when Mrs. Pinkston

passed away. Once service of the amended complaint was perfected, Deutsche Bank

sought summary judgment.

{¶4} Jefferson disputed Deutsche Bank’s interest in the property and claimed

that Mrs. Pinkston had not signed the mortgage and had been unaware that Mr. Pinkston

had encumbered the property. Though Jefferson argued that Mr. and Mrs. Pinkston had

been joint tenants with rights of survivorship and that any debt had been extinguished

when Mr. Pinkston died, the trial court found otherwise and granted summary judgment

in favor of Deutsche Bank. Jefferson now appeals, raising five assignments of error.

Jefferson’s Brief Includes Both Too Little and Too Much

{¶5} We first note that Jefferson’s brief fails to comply in two key ways with the

Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. First, Jefferson in his appellate brief refers several times to certain documents, but he does not indicate where those documents can be

found in the record. His use of vague directives such as “see probate documents” and

“see estate document” does not comport with App.R. 16(D), which says that “[r]eferences

in the briefs to parts of the record shall be to the pages of the parts of the record involved.”

{¶6} As Ohio appellate courts have repeatedly noted, we are not duty-bound to

go thumbing through the record in search of evidence that supports a party’s argument.

See Hall v. Crawford Cty. Job & Family Servs., 2022-Ohio-1358, ¶ 38 (3d Dist.), quoting

State v. McGuire, 1996 WL 174609, *14 (12th Dist. Apr. 15, 1996) (“‘It is not the duty of

an appellate court to search the record for evidence to support an appellant's argument’”);

State ex rel. Physicians Commt. For Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of

Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903, ¶ 13 (“Appellate attorneys should not expect the court to

peruse the record without the help of pinpoint citations to the record”) (quotations

omitted).

{¶7} Jefferson’s argument is further complicated by the fact that he has

improperly attached documents to his brief that do not appear to be part of the trial court’s

record. App.R. 9(A)(1) provides that the record on appeal consists of “[t]he original papers

and exhibits . . . filed in the trial court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, including

exhibits, and a certified copy of the docket and journal entries prepared by the clerk of the

trial court.” Because the documents attached to Jefferson’s brief “are not properly part of

the appellate record,” they cannot be considered by this court. State v. Brown, 2017-

Ohio-8997, ¶ 10 (5th Dist.), citing Willis v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2016-Ohio-1593, ¶ 9,

fn. 1 (4th Dist.). “[A] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it that was not a part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the

new matter.” State v. Hooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 83, 83 (2001).

{¶8} Jefferson’s pro se status cannot excuse his failure to follow the Ohio Rules

of Appellate Procedure. The Supreme Court of Ohio has “repeatedly declared that ‘pro

se litigants . . . must follow the same procedures as litigants represented by counsel.’”

State ex rel. Neil v. French, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore,

2009-Ohio-4150, ¶ 5. Non-attorney litigants who choose to represent themselves in court

are also “‘presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and . . . are held

to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.’” State ex rel. Fuller

v. Mengel, 2003-Ohio-6448, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Serv.,

145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654 (10th Dist. 2001).

The Trial Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment

{¶9} Appellate courts review with fresh eyes a trial court’s decision on a motion

for summary judgment. Smathers v. Glass, 2022-Ohio-4595, ¶ 30 (“an appellate court

applies a de novo standard of review” when a summary-judgment decision is challenged).

In reviewing the trial court’s judgment in this case, we must conduct “an independent

review of the evidence without deference to the trial court’s findings.” Id. In doing so, we

examine the evidence available in the record and determine whether summary judgment

is appropriate. Id.

{¶10} Under Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment may be granted only after the trial

court determines that: (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated;

(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the

evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and — viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary

judgment is made — that conclusion is adverse to that party. PNC Bank Natl. Assn. v.

Whitaker, 2025-Ohio-1078, ¶ 17, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317,

327 (1977). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of

demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d

280, 292 (1996). The moving party must be able to point to some evidence of the type

listed in Civ.R. 56(C) affirmatively demonstrating that the nonmoving party has no

evidence to support its claims. Id. at 292–293. If the moving party satisfies its initial

burden, the nonmoving party then has the reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to

set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 293. The

record on summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party. Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 152 (1974).

{¶11} To succeed on a motion for summary judgment in an action for foreclosure,

a bank must show that: “(1) it is the holder of the note and mortgage, or is a party entitled

to enforce the instrument; (2) if it is not the original mortgagee, the chain of assignments

and transfers; (3) all conditions precedent have been met; (4) the mortgagor . . . is in

default; and (5) the amount of principal and interest due.” Whitaker at ¶ 19, citing

Wachovia Bank of Delaware, N.A. v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-3203, ¶ 40–45 (5th Dist.).

{¶12} “[A] plaintiff in a foreclosure action must have standing at the time the

complaint is filed in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court.” Deutsche

Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Holden, 2016-Ohio-4603, ¶ 29, citing Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp.

v. Schwartzwald, 2012-Ohio-5017, ¶ 24. The record in this case contains undisputed

evidence that Deutsche Bank is the assignee of the mortgage and holder of the note. {¶13} Jefferson does not dispute Deutsche Bank’s compliance with the conditions

precedent to foreclosure. Deutsche Bank provided to the trial court an affidavit from an

officer of the company that manages the bank’s loan portfolio, and that officer indicates

in the affidavit not only that Deutsche Bank has possession of the note but also that the

account history shows that the note was in default as of March 1, 2020. (Pl.’s. Mot.

Summ. J., Ex. A, Benavidez Aff. ¶ 4-5.).

The Foreclosure Action Is Not Barred by any Statute of Limitations

{¶14} Jefferson argues here that this foreclosure action is barred by the statute of

limitations. All parties agree that the note was signed in 2004, and Deutsche Bank filed

this foreclosure action in 2024. Citing R.C. 2305.06, Jefferson argues that Deutsche Bank

waited too long to file this case. That statutory provision says that an action based on an

agreement or contract in writing must be brought within six years after the cause of action

accrued, though the version of the statute in effect when Mr. Pinkston signed the note

and mortgage provided a 15-year limitations period for bringing an action on written

agreements.

{¶15} Ohio courts have not always agreed about the proper limitations period that

applies to in-rem cases like this one. See Trinity Finan. Services LLC v. D’Apolito, 2024-

Ohio-825, ¶ 41 (7th Dist.) (“the action on the mortgage was subject to the . . . statute of

limitations in R.C. 2305.06(A) rather than the . . . statute of limitations applicable to U.C.C.

notes in R.C. 1303.16(A)”); U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. O’Malley, 2019-Ohio-5340, ¶ 22 (8th

Dist.) (“If a mortgagee is unable to enforce a promissory note due to the running of the

statute of limitations, the mortgagee still has the right to enforce an action on the mortgage

under the longer [21-year] statute of limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.04”); In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 200 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2018) (noting that the Supreme Court of Ohio

“has not specifically ruled on the applicable statute of limitations

for in rem foreclosure actions upon a mortgage” and holding that a bank was “barred by

the six-year statute of limitations in O.R.C. § 1303.16(A) from foreclosing” on a

mortgage).

{¶16} Even if Jefferson is correct that R.C. 2305.06 sets the limitations period that

governs in this case, he is surely mistaken in his view that the limitations period began to

run in 2004 when Mr. Pinkston signed the note and mortgage. That is so because in

foreclosure cases, as in other breach-of-contract cases, “the cause of action does not

accrue on the date the contract came into existence” but instead accrues “when one party

breaches the contract.” Huntington Natl. Bank v. Michel, 2017-Ohio-9404, ¶ 33 (7th Dist.),

citing State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union 377 v. City of Youngstown, 50 Ohio St.2d 200,

203–204 (1977) (“Normally, a cause of action does not accrue until such time as the

infringement of a right arises. It is at this point that the time within which a cause of action

is to be commenced begins to run.”).

{¶17} Deutsche Bank asserted in its complaint that Mr. Pinkston defaulted on the

note when he failed to make the payment that was due on March 1, 2020. Deutsche

Bank provided affidavit testimony to support this assertion. Whether that date in 2020

triggered the running of the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action or perhaps a later

date when the bank may have demanded full repayment of any outstanding loan balance

under an acceleration clause in the loan agreement, surely Deutsche Bank’s filing of its

foreclosure action in 2024 was timely under R.C. 2305.06 or any other relevant limitations

period. An Error in the Trial Court’s Judgment Entry Regarding Jefferson’s Relationship to the Debtor Does Not Affect the Judgment’s Validity

{¶18} The trial court’s judgment entry granting a final judgment and decree of

foreclosure erroneously describes Jefferson as “the only surviving heir of James H.

Pinkston.” (Entry Granting Final Judgment, 2.) Jefferson was not in fact an heir of Mr.

Pinkston. Instead, Jefferson inherited the property from his mother, who was married to

Mr. Pinkston. Jefferson contends that the trial court granted summary judgment in part

on the mistaken belief that Jefferson was the sole heir of the debtor.

{¶19} That erroneous language in the entry is irrelevant. Deutsche Bank sought

a foreclosure in rem, meaning that the action was against the property itself, and not

against the persons named in the complaint. Moss v. Standard Drug Co., 159 Ohio St.

464, 470 (1953) (“Actions in rem are usually defined as proceedings against property

itself, or as is said, directed primarily against things themselves”).

{¶20} Jefferson is listed in the amended complaint as a party who may claim an

interest in the property, but the bank did seek judgment against Jefferson himself for the

amount owed on the note, and the trial court’s judgment entry granting the motion for

summary judgment did not find Jefferson liable for the balance due on the note. Instead,

the trial court’s entry rightly states that “this case is not an action in which a personal

judgment may be taken against Defendant Earl Jefferson for payment of the obligation

on the [n]ote.” (Entry Granting Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., 5.)

{¶21} Even though the entry granting a final judgment and decree of foreclosure

incorrectly referred to Jefferson as the only surviving heir of Mr. Pinkston, nothing about

that phrase undercuts the validity of the judgment itself. The trial court correctly granted

an in-rem judgment only. Unauthorized Filings by Plaintiff’s Former Counsel Are Not Grounds for Dismissal

{¶22} While this case was pending before the trial court, Deutsche Bank changed

its legal representation from one law firm to a different one. New counsel (from the firm

of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC) filed the motion for summary judgment. After

the trial court granted judgment, Deutsche Bank’s prior counsel (from the firm of

Reisenfeld & Associates LLC) inexplicably asked the trial court to sign an order of sale of

the property and other related documents. These unauthorized filings were stricken by

the trial court at Deutsche Bank’s request.

{¶23} Jefferson argues that these unauthorized filings present disputed questions

of fact that defeat summary judgment. In support of his argument, Jefferson cites

disciplinary cases involving the unauthorized practice of law, and he asks us to overturn

the judgment as a sanction for the unauthorized actions of the bank’s former counsel.

{¶24} Jefferson fails to explain how the post-judgment actions of Deutsche Bank’s

prior counsel affected the trial court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Only

after the trial court had granted the motion for summary judgment did the bank’s former

counsel reappear in the case with some post-judgment filings. Because all the

unauthorized filings were stricken from the record, any alleged harm that Jefferson might

claim was cured. We see no reason why these post-judgment filings would cast any

doubt on the validity of the trial court’s judgment.

James Pinkston’s Misrepresentation About His Marital Status Does Not Bar Judgment in Deutsche Bank’s Favor

{¶25} The mortgage document signed by Mr. Pinkston in 2004 describes him as

a divorced man. His wife, Marilyn Pinkston, was not listed on that mortgage or on the

note. {¶26} The mortgage’s improper description of Mr. Pinkston’s marital status is

evidence, Jefferson claims, of fraud, and that fraud, in Jefferson’s view, now bars any

judgment in Deutsche Bank’s favor. Any fraud, however, appears to have been

committed by Mr. Pinkston rather than by the bank or by its predecessor in interest.

Although Jefferson alleges that the bank that made the loan to Mr. Pinkston may have

intentionally or negligently failed to fully investigate Mr. Pinkston’s claim that he was a

divorced man, Jefferson has not provided any evidence that creates a genuine issue of

material fact for trial. At the summary-judgment stage, a party must set forth specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and cannot simply rely on unsupported

assertions. Because Jefferson failed to meet his evidentiary burden under Civ.R. 56(E),

the trial court did not err when it disregarded Jefferson’s fraud allegation at the summary-

judgment stage.

James and Marilyn Pinkston Were Not Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship

{¶27} Jefferson claims that Marilyn and James Pinkston purchased the property

in 2001 as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. There is no document in the record,

however, that supports that claim. What the record does show is that the property was

conveyed solely to Mr. Pinkston through a warranty deed dated November 30, 2001.

Jefferson has not identified any evidence supporting his claim that the deed was later

changed to create a joint tenancy.

{¶28} The documentation that Jefferson did provide shows that James and

Marilyn Pinkston signed a mortgage on the property for $95,402 with Wells Fargo Home

Mortgage on November 30, 2001. Three years later, Mr. Pinkston executed the note and

mortgage at issue in this case, and soon thereafter, Wells Fargo signed and recorded paperwork indicating that its mortgage on the property had been satisfied and was

discharged. All other documentation regarding the property is dated after Mr. Pinkston

died in 2022.

{¶29} Tenancies in common and survivorship tenancies are now addressed by

statutes in Ohio. Because Mr. Pinkston acquired the property in question after those

statutes were already in effect, they govern in this case. R.C. 5302.20(A) provides that

“if any interest in real property is conveyed or devised to two or more persons for their

joint lives and then to the survivor or survivors of them, those persons hold title as

survivorship tenants, and the joint interest created is a survivorship tenancy.”

{¶30} Jefferson argues that upon Mr. Pinkston’s death, the mortgage now held by

Deutsche Bank was extinguished. In the trial court, Jefferson relied upon a First District

Court of Appeals case holding that a survivorship tenant cannot deed away more of an

interest than he possessed and that conveyances of title from the survivorship tenant to

a third party are conditioned on that tenant outliving all other survivorship tenants. Murphy

v. Murphy, 77 Ohio App.3d 573, 576 (1st Dist. 1991). But as the court in Murphy held,

“the case law makes clear that the right of survivorship in Ohio arises from the contractual

language of the granting instrument, not as an incident of a joint tenancy as it existed at

common law.” Id. There is no evidence in the record that a joint tenancy relationship was

ever created between James Pinkston and Marilyn Pinkston.

{¶31} Moreover, a mortgage does not convey title. “In Ohio, a mortgage is merely

a security for a debt, and the legal and equitable title to the property remains in the

mortgagor until the mortgage is foreclosed and a sale consummated, or until a mortgagee

otherwise extinguishes the right of the mortgagor to redeem.” Fannie Mae v. Winding, 2014-Ohio-1698, ¶ 21 (12th Dist.), citing Stand Energy Corp. v. Epler, 2005-Ohio-4820,

¶ 13 (10th Dist.). Upon Mr. Pinkston’s death, Mrs. Pinkston inherited the property and

acquired full title to it, but this did not extinguish Deutsche Bank’s mortgage. Instead, the

mortgage followed the property, and Mrs. Pinkston took the property subject to the

mortgage. See id. at ¶ 23. Deutsche Bank’s mortgage on the property was not

extinguished when Mr. Pinkston died.

{¶32} For these various reasons, the judgment of the Richland County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs are to be paid by Appellant Earl L. Jefferson.

By: Gormley, J.;

King, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur.