Ohio’s Sixth District Court of Appeals recently affirmed an Order issued by the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of an party that was represented by our lawyers. See Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Cody, 6th Dist. Ottawa Case No. OT-18-041, 2020-Ohio-5553.
In Cody, the borrower received $938,250 in exchange for a mortgage granted on two adjacent parcels located on Put-in-Bay Island. One parcel contained a residential structure. The other parcel was mostly vacant, but a portion of a detached garage was located on that “vacant” parcel, along with a private boat dock. The heirs argued that the legal description contained in the Mortgage listed only the street address of the residential parcel. Our lawyers presented evidence to the Trial Court showing that the Mortgage described both parcels by metes and bounds and by parcel numbers. Our lawyers also produced evidence showing that the borrower had intended to mortgage the vacant parcel, such as the appraisal, which included both the detached garage and the private dock in the valuation of the property. They also presented evidence showing that no separate street address had ever been assigned to the vacant parcel, and thus no such other street address could have been included in the description of the property to be encumbered.
The Trial Court granted summary judgment, finding that the Mortgage was unambiguous and should be enforced as to both parcels described in the legal description. On appeal, the heirs claimed error based on the Trial Court’s refusal to consider the heirs’ testimony about their father’s claimed statements that the Mortgage wasn’t supposed to encumber the vacant lot. The Appellate Court further found that the legal description included in the Mortgage clearly and unambiguously described both the residential parcel and the vacant parcel, and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of our Client.
To review the Cody Decision, click here.