“AFFIDAVIT = NO PROOF YOU OWN NOTE”
DEUTSCHE BANK v. TRIPLETT
Posted on05 February 2011. Tags: affidavit, appeals court, Chanel Triplett, countrywide, cuyahoga county, David Perez, deutsche bank, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, foreclosure fraud, Judge Blackmon, Judge Gallagher, Judge Sweeney, no standing, note, ohio, Renee Hertzler, reversed
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Chanel Triplett, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 94924.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 3, 2011.
Appellant
Chanel Triplett, Pro Se, 2982 East 59th Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44127
Attorneys for Appellees
Mathew P. Curry, Manley DEAS Kochalski, LLC, P. O. Box 165028, Columbus, Ohio 43216-5028, Ted A. Humbert, Jason A. Whitacre, Kathryn M. Eyster, The Law Offices of John D. Clunk, Co., L.P.A., 4500 Courthouse Blvd., Suite 400, Stow, Ohio 44224, Nova Star Mortgage, Inc., 6200 Oak Tree Blvd., Third Floor, Independence, Ohio 44131, Stewart Lender Services, 9700 Bissonet Suite 1500, Mail Stop 27, Houston, Texas 77036,
——
Before: Blackmon, P.J., Sweeney, J., and Gallagher, J.
excerpt:
{¶ 7} Deutsche Bank also attached an affidavit from Renee Hertzler, an officer of Countrywide Home Loans, its loan servicing agent. Hertzler averred that Triplett’s loan account was under her supervision and that there was a principal balance due in the amount of $80,504.77 with interest thereon at 9.1% per year from August 1, 2007. Hertzler also averred that Triplett’s loan remained in default.
{¶ 17} In U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Duvall, Cuyahoga App. No. 94714, 2010-Ohio-6478, this Court’s recent decision affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a foreclosure complaint involving facts substantially similar to the present case, we rejected an affidavit that stated the plaintiff acquired the note and mortgage prior to the filing of the complaint. Likewise, Deutsche Bank’s affidavit of ownership, sworn out more than a year after the foreclosure complaint was filed, is insufficient to vest the bank with standing to file and maintain the action. Thus, if Deutsche Bank had offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jordan, ¶¶ 22-23. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision because Deutsche Bank lacks standing.
D v. T w
No comments:
Post a Comment