Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Virgili

2012 Ohio 506
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 8, 2012
Docket2011-COA-024
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 506 (Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Virgili) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Virgili, 2012 Ohio 506 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[Cite as Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Virgili, 2012-Ohio-506.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES: RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. INC. : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : Case No. 2011-COA-024 : LISA A. VIRGILI, ET AL : : OPINION Defendant-Appellant

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 09-CFR-350

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 8, 2012

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

WILLIAM T. MCINTYRE BRIAN J. HALLIGAN BROWN,BEMILLER MURRAY VALERIE A. LANG MCINTYRE & HARING, LLP HALLIGAN & LANG CO., LPA 24 W. 3rd Street 1149 East Main Street, Box 455 Mansfield, OH 44902 Ashland, OH 44805 [Cite as Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Virgili, 2012-Ohio-506.]

Gwin, P.J.

{1} Defendant-counterclaimant-appellant Lisa Virgili and her minor son, Blake

Stout (“Virgili”) appeal a summary judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Ashland

County, Ohio, which found counterclaim defendant-appellee PNC (“PNC”) to be a bank

not subject to the Ohio Consumer’s Sales Practices Act, and not an agent of the seller,

defendant Lee A. Schlingman, who is not a party to this appeal. Appellant assigns two

errors to the trial court:

{2} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BECAUSE APPELLEE PNC MORTGAGE (FKA NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE)

FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE PERMITTED BY CIV. R. 56 (C) AND CIV. R.

56 (E).

{3} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BECAUSE REASONABLE MINDS COULD REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS AS

TO WHETHER APPELLEE ACTED AS A SELLER OR AGENT OF THE SELLER

WHERE APPELLEE VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED DUTIES THAT IT FAILED TO

DISCHARGE WITH ORDINARY CARE.”

{4} For the reasons that follow, we find neither assignment of error is well

taken, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

{5} At the outset, we note the judgment appealed from is a final appealable

order over which we have jurisdiction. Although issues remain pending against other

parties, the court’s judgment resolves all the claims set out in the counterclaim against

PNC. The court also found no just reason for delay pursuant to Civ. R. 54. Ashland County, Case No. 2011-COA-024 3

{6} The trial court’s judgment entry does not set out the facts it found to be

material and undisputed. Virgili’s statement pursuant to Loc. App. 9 states the judgment

is inappropriate as a matter of law because an issue remains regarding whether PNC

owed a duty as a seller of the real estate. Virgili also submits there is a genuine dispute

as to five facts: (1) Was PNC an agent of Schlingman or appellant’s belief of agency

reasonable under the circumstances? (2) Was there an agreement between PNC and

Schlingman whereby the former would prepare forms necessary to effectuate the sale

of the real estate? (3) Whether PNC is a financial institution, a mortgage company, or

non-bank lender? (4) Whether PNC employee Susan Jurjevic was a loan officer? And,

(5) Whether PNC breached any duties which arose by operation of law.

{7} The record indicates appellant Lisa Virgili purchased a home from

Schlingman under a contract provided to the parties by PNC. PNC also furnished the

residential real estate disclosure form and the lead-based paint hazard form. In order to

become eligible for the loan, Virgili had to reduce her debt-to-credit ratio. She alleged to

assist her in reducing her debt, Schlingman improperly purchased her truck to discharge

the loan on it, and also deposited funds into Virgili’s bank account, with the full

knowledge and consent of National City Mortgage, PNC’s predecessor in interest.

{8} Sometime after moving into the home, Virgili’s son, Blake, apparently

ingested lead-based paint, and became ill. Appellant was forced to move from the

home to an apartment, and she was unable to pay both rent and the mortgage payment.

Plaintiff Residential Credit Solutions, which is not a party to this appeal, foreclosed on

the mortgage, and Virgili filed a counterclaim against PNC. The counterclaim alleged

violations with the duty of good faith and a violation of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Ashland County, Case No. 2011-COA-024 4

Act. PNC Bank alleges that it is the successor by merger to National City Mortgage, a

division of National City Bank, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act does not

apply to banks.

{9} Civ. R. 56 states in pertinent part:

{10} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the 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 and that conclusion is adverse to the party

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to

have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor. A summary

judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone

although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.”

{11} A trial court should not enter a summary judgment if it appears a material

fact is genuinely disputed, nor if, construing the allegations most favorably towards the

non-moving party, reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from the

undisputed facts, Houndshell v. American States Insurance Company, 67 Ohio St. 2d

427 (1981). The court may not resolve ambiguities in the evidence presented, Inland

Refuse Transfer Company v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St. 3d Ashland County, Case No. 2011-COA-024 5

321(1984) . A fact is material if it affects the outcome of the case under the applicable

substantive law, Russell v. Interim Personnel, Inc., 135 Ohio App. 3d 301(1999).

{12} When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment, an

appellate court applies the same standard used by the trial court, Smiddy v. The

Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St. 3d 35 (1987). This means we review the matter de

novo, Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 2000-Ohio-186.

{13} The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of

informing the trial court of the basis of the motion and identifying the portions of the

record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element

of the non-moving party’s claim, Drescher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St. 3d 280 (1996). Once the

moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set

forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact does exist, Id. The

non-moving party may not rest upon the allegations and denials in the pleadings, but

instead must submit some evidentiary material showing a genuine dispute over material

facts, Henkle v. Henkle, 75 Ohio App. 3d 732 (1991).

I.

{14} In her first assignment of error, Virgili argues PNC filed its motion for

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Beneficial Fin. I, Inc. v. Labraney
2014 Ohio 1801 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/residential-credit-solutions-inc-v-virgili-ohioctapp-2012.