[Cite as Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. McConnnell, 2012-Ohio-5159.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 12CAE070040 RYAN MCCONNELL, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellants OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11CV060733
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 5, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
SCOTT A. KING JOHN SHERROD Thomas Hine LLP Mills, Mills, Fiely & Lucas, LLC Austin Landing I 503 South Front Street, Ste. 240 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Dayton, Ohio 45401
TERRANCE A. MEBANE Thompson Hine LLP 41 South Hight Street, Suite 1700 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Ryan and Stefanie McConnell appeal the June 13,
2012 Judgment Entry entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which
granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Wells Fargo Bank NA (“the
Bank”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On August 19, 2005, Appellants executed a promissory note (“the Note”).
The Note was secured by a mortgage against real property located at 128 High
Meadows Circle, Powell, Ohio (“the Property”). The Note was payable to, and the
Mortgage was in favor of, the Bank. Appellants and the Bank executed a Loan
Modification Agreement (“the LMA”) dated April 22, 2009. The LMA changed the
amount of the unpaid principal balance under the Note, reduced Appellants’ monthly
mortgage payments, and lowered the interest rate under the Note.
{¶3} On June 22, 2011, the Bank filed a Complaint against Appellants, seeking
to recover the balance due under the Note, and to foreclose on the Mortgage secured
by the Property. The Bank attached to the Complaint copies of the Note payable to the
Bank, the Mortgage in favor of the Bank, and the LMA. Appellants filed an Answer on
August 26, 2011, and requested mediation as well as a stay pending mediation. The
trial court denied Appellants’ request for mediation.
{¶4} The Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on November 3, 2011. An
affidavit executed by Charles DeBono, Jr. accompanied the motion. In his affidavit,
DeBono stated Appellants had executed the Note and the Mortgage, and identified the
balance due. DeBono did not specifically identify copies of the Note and Mortgage Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 3
although such was attached to his affidavit. The Copy of the Note did not bear any
indorsements.
{¶5} The Bank subsequently filed the affidavits of Susana Leal Salgado and
Edward H. Cahill. In her affidavit, Salgado authenticated and attached copies of the
Note and LMA. The copy of the Note included an indorsement which “bleeds through”
to the page bearing Appellants’ signatures. With his affidavit, Cahill attached certified
copies of the Mortgage and LMA.
{¶6} Appellant filed a memorandum contra to which the Bank filed a reply. Via
Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure filed June 13, 2012, the trial court granted
the Bank’s motion for summary judgment and issued a decree in foreclosure.
{¶7} It is from this judgment entry Appellants appeal, assigning as error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE THE INDORSED
PROMISSORY NOTE.
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SINCE SAID
AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATE THE NOTE/MORTGAGE.”
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶10} Summary judgment proceedings present the appellate court with the
unique opportunity of reviewing the evidence in the same manner as the trial court.
Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 36, 506 N.E.2d 212. As Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 4
such, this Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio
Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241.
{¶11} Civ.R. 56 provides summary judgment may be granted only after the trial
court determines: 1) no genuine issues as to any material fact remain 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 such
evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary
judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.
(1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267.
{¶12} It is well established the party seeking summary judgment bears the
burden of demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett (1987), 477 U.S. 317, 330, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265. The standard for
granting summary judgment is delineated in Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280
at 293, 662 N.E.2d 264: “ * * * a party seeking summary judgment, on the ground that
the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, bears the initial burden of informing the trial
court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s)
of the nonmoving party's claims. The moving party cannot discharge its initial burden
under Civ.R. 56 simply by making a conclusory assertion the nonmoving party has no
evidence to prove its case. Rather, the moving party must be able to specifically point to
some evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) which affirmatively demonstrates the
nonmoving party has no evidence to support the nonmoving party's claims. If the
moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 5
denied. However, if the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party
then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing
there is a genuine issue for trial and, if the nonmovant does not so respond, summary
judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party.” The record on
summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party.
Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 309 N.E.2d 924.
I, II
{¶13} Because Appellants’ assignments of error are interrelated, we shall
address them together. In their first assignment of error, Appellants challenge the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bank upon a finding the Bank was not
required to amend its Complaint to include the indorsed promissory note. In their
second assignment of error, Appellants take issue with the trial court’s consideration of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. McConnnell, 2012-Ohio-5159.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 12CAE070040 RYAN MCCONNELL, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellants OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11CV060733
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 5, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
SCOTT A. KING JOHN SHERROD Thomas Hine LLP Mills, Mills, Fiely & Lucas, LLC Austin Landing I 503 South Front Street, Ste. 240 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Dayton, Ohio 45401
TERRANCE A. MEBANE Thompson Hine LLP 41 South Hight Street, Suite 1700 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Ryan and Stefanie McConnell appeal the June 13,
2012 Judgment Entry entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which
granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Wells Fargo Bank NA (“the
Bank”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On August 19, 2005, Appellants executed a promissory note (“the Note”).
The Note was secured by a mortgage against real property located at 128 High
Meadows Circle, Powell, Ohio (“the Property”). The Note was payable to, and the
Mortgage was in favor of, the Bank. Appellants and the Bank executed a Loan
Modification Agreement (“the LMA”) dated April 22, 2009. The LMA changed the
amount of the unpaid principal balance under the Note, reduced Appellants’ monthly
mortgage payments, and lowered the interest rate under the Note.
{¶3} On June 22, 2011, the Bank filed a Complaint against Appellants, seeking
to recover the balance due under the Note, and to foreclose on the Mortgage secured
by the Property. The Bank attached to the Complaint copies of the Note payable to the
Bank, the Mortgage in favor of the Bank, and the LMA. Appellants filed an Answer on
August 26, 2011, and requested mediation as well as a stay pending mediation. The
trial court denied Appellants’ request for mediation.
{¶4} The Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on November 3, 2011. An
affidavit executed by Charles DeBono, Jr. accompanied the motion. In his affidavit,
DeBono stated Appellants had executed the Note and the Mortgage, and identified the
balance due. DeBono did not specifically identify copies of the Note and Mortgage Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 3
although such was attached to his affidavit. The Copy of the Note did not bear any
indorsements.
{¶5} The Bank subsequently filed the affidavits of Susana Leal Salgado and
Edward H. Cahill. In her affidavit, Salgado authenticated and attached copies of the
Note and LMA. The copy of the Note included an indorsement which “bleeds through”
to the page bearing Appellants’ signatures. With his affidavit, Cahill attached certified
copies of the Mortgage and LMA.
{¶6} Appellant filed a memorandum contra to which the Bank filed a reply. Via
Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure filed June 13, 2012, the trial court granted
the Bank’s motion for summary judgment and issued a decree in foreclosure.
{¶7} It is from this judgment entry Appellants appeal, assigning as error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE THE INDORSED
PROMISSORY NOTE.
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SINCE SAID
AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATE THE NOTE/MORTGAGE.”
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶10} Summary judgment proceedings present the appellate court with the
unique opportunity of reviewing the evidence in the same manner as the trial court.
Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 36, 506 N.E.2d 212. As Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 4
such, this Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio
Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241.
{¶11} Civ.R. 56 provides summary judgment may be granted only after the trial
court determines: 1) no genuine issues as to any material fact remain 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 such
evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary
judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.
(1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267.
{¶12} It is well established the party seeking summary judgment bears the
burden of demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett (1987), 477 U.S. 317, 330, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265. The standard for
granting summary judgment is delineated in Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280
at 293, 662 N.E.2d 264: “ * * * a party seeking summary judgment, on the ground that
the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, bears the initial burden of informing the trial
court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s)
of the nonmoving party's claims. The moving party cannot discharge its initial burden
under Civ.R. 56 simply by making a conclusory assertion the nonmoving party has no
evidence to prove its case. Rather, the moving party must be able to specifically point to
some evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) which affirmatively demonstrates the
nonmoving party has no evidence to support the nonmoving party's claims. If the
moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 5
denied. However, if the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party
then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing
there is a genuine issue for trial and, if the nonmovant does not so respond, summary
judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party.” The record on
summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party.
Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 309 N.E.2d 924.
I, II
{¶13} Because Appellants’ assignments of error are interrelated, we shall
address them together. In their first assignment of error, Appellants challenge the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bank upon a finding the Bank was not
required to amend its Complaint to include the indorsed promissory note. In their
second assignment of error, Appellants take issue with the trial court’s consideration of
the affidavit in support of the Bank’s motion for summary judgment because said
affidavit did not properly authenticate the Note and Mortgage.
{¶14} Appellants assert the Bank did not follow the proper procedural guidelines
set out in Civ. R. 56. Appellants explain the copy of the Note attached to the Complaint
as well as the copy of the Note attached to the motion for summary judgment are not
indorsed and do not contain any “bleed through”, however, the copy of the Note
attached to the Affidavit of Authenticity by Susana Leal Salgado is indorsed and
contains a “bleed through”. According to Appellants, the Bank was required to amend
its Complaint to include a copy of an indorsed note. The Bank merely altered the
evidence before the court by submitting Salgado’s Affidavit of Authenticity. Appellants
rely upon Civ.R. 10(D) in support of their position, which states: Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 6
“When any claim or defense is founded on an account or other
written instrument, a copy of the account or written instrument must be
attached to the pleading. If the account or written instrument is not
attached, the reason for the omission must be stated in the pleading.”
{¶15} The Bank attached a copy of the Note to its Complaint. The Bank
subsequently submitted a copy of the indorsed Note with the Affidavit of Authenticity
filed in support of its motion for summary judgment. Appellants did not come forward
with any Civ. R. 56 evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the original
Note was actually indorsed. Because the evidence was ultimately provided to the trial
court, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s consideration of the evidence and
reliance on it in granting summary judgment in favor of the Bank.
{¶16} We also disagree with Appellants’ assertion the Salgado Affidavit did not
properly authenticate the Note and Mortgage. The Bank alleged in the Complaint it is
entitled to enforce the Note pursuant to R.C. 1303.31. In his Affidavit of Status of
Account, DeBono averred the Bank “is the holder of, or is otherwise entitled to enforce,
the Note and Mortgage.” DeBono Affidavit at para. 7. Additionally, in her Affidavit of
Authenticity, Salgado states the Note and LMA which were attached to the affidavit
were true and accurate copies of the original note and original loan modification. These
documents list the Bank as the lender. Both affidavits are proper Civ. R. 56(C)
evidence. Appellants have not presented any evidence the copies of the Note and
Mortgage are not authentic. Appellants failed to create a material issue of fact.
{¶17} Appellants’ first and second assignments of error are overruled. Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 7
{¶18} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS Delaware County, Case No. 12CAE070040 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : RYAN MCCONNELL, ET AL. : : Defendants-Appellants : Case No. 12CAE070040
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin_____________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS