“Standing” is a legal term that relates to whether a specific plaintiff holds a right to bring a lawsuit against specific defendants. Standing does not involve factual issues in foreclosure actions, such as the amount in default. Instead, it involves whether the specific entity acting as plaintiff in the lawsuit holds the legal right and authority to sue a particular defendant or defendants.
- A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action.
- Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another opinion.
- Federal courts interpreting Ohio law must apply the correct statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions.
In the bankruptcy case of In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 199–200 (N.D. Ohio Bankr.
Downtown Redevelopment Districts
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that, when debt on promissory note secured by mortgage has been discharged in bankruptcy, the holder of the note may not pursue collection against the maker of note, but the mortgagee has standing to foreclose on the collateral property, and can use the amounts due on the note as evidence to establish that it may collect from the forced sale of the property.
Full text of the Court's opinion
In a 7-0 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court in Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4505, held that the Ohio's Liquidation Act does not authorize the Superintendent of Insurance to pay interest to an insurer’s creditors and other preferred claimants on allowed claims before paying the funds remaining in the insolvent estate to the insurer's shareholders.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a mortgage defectively executed but properly recorded still provides constructive notice of its contents.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.
The borrowers executed a promissory note and a mortgage. The notary acknowledgment on the mortgage was left blank. The mortgage was recorded with the notary section incomplete. The mortgage was later assigned.
Downtown Redevelopment Districts
- A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action.
- Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another opinion.
- Federal courts interpreting Ohio law must apply the correct statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions.
In the bankruptcy case of In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 199–200 (N.D. Ohio Bankr.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that, when debt on promissory note secured by mortgage has been discharged in bankruptcy, the holder of the note may not pursue collection against the maker of note, but the mortgagee has standing to foreclose on the collateral property, and can use the amounts due on the note as evidence to establish that it may collect from the forced sale of the property.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a mortgage defectively executed but properly recorded still provides constructive notice of its contents.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.
The borrowers executed a promissory note and a mortgage. The notary acknowledgment on the mortgage was left blank. The mortgage was recorded with the notary section incomplete. The mortgage was later assigned.