Ohio Appellate Court Cases Point To The Need For Foreclosing Lenders To Prove Note Ownership & Otherwise Establish Right To Foreclose

A recent Ohio appeals court ruled last month that a foreclosing mortgage company is not entitled to a foreclosure judgment if they can't prove their ownership of the promissory note and how they came about owning the mortgage. For the ruling, see Everhome Mtge. Co. v. Rowland, 2008-Ohio-1282; (10th Dist. Ct. App.; March 20, 2008).

In making its ruling, the court cited prior Ohio appellate court decisions that also point to the apparent need for a foreclosing mortgage lender to prove that it is the owner of the promissory note and, thererfore, the real party in interest to initiate the legal action. For those cases, see:

• First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 673; 3rd Dist. Ct. App., and
• Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Green (2004), 156 Ohio App.3d 461; 7th Dist. Ct. App.).

Inasmuch as these cases are appellate court cases from the Ohio judiciary, they appear to carry more weight than any Ohio trial court decisions that have ruled to the contrary.

For the long version of this post, see Lender Not Entitled To Foreclosure Judgment Due To Failure To Prove Promissory Note Ownership, Says Ohio Appeals Court.

In a related story, see U.S. News & World Report: How Ohio Is Tackling the Foreclosure Crisis.

For other posts that reference the failure of some mortgage lenders and their attorneys to file the required loan documents when starting foreclosures, Go Here, Go Here, Go Here and Go Here. missing mortgage foreclosure docs beta