Ohio Supreme Court's Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. BANK v. DUVALL


Ohio Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. BANK v. DUVALL

Ohio Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. BANK v. DUVALL

Via: Ohio Fraudclosure

A Simple question was before the OHIO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:

To have STANDING, as a plaintiff, in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the NOTE and the MORTGAGE when the complaint was filed?

[ipaper docId=65917165 access_key=key-25j0inxaj5zilae5vzl1 height=600 width=600 /]


© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



This post was written by:

- who has written 9281 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

7 Responses to “Ohio Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. BANK v. DUVALL”

  1. Slade Smith says:

    Not a shocking decision. The Duvall mortgage was paid off and released earlier this year– that’s what made the lawsuit moot. U.S. Bank, acknowledging that the mortgage was now paid off, invited the Ohio Supreme Court to still consider the issue, since they would have liked for the adverse appeals court ruling to be overturned, but the Supreme Court declined.

  2. dinsfla says:

    It’s shocking in the manner that they had/have the right to hear the issue and rule on it since this is an on going problem.

    Another shocking case earlier was the PINO v. BONY in Florida. They should hear these cases as one of the appeals Justices stated

    ““We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,” the appeals court wrote in certification to the Supreme Court.”

    Thousands want the courts to rule on assignment fraud. Homeowners just need some closure.


    Thanks for stopping by.

  3. Slade Smith says:

    The important thing is that the appeals court ruling stands. To the extent that it is an ongoing problem, the next affected borrower and bank can battle it out– if the bank is willing to fight this appeals court ruling to begin with. Why should Duvall bear the burden of continuing litigation when he no longer has anything to gain? The court here granted a motion that Duvall asked for.

    This is a good outcome for both this borrower and other similarly situated borrowers here in Ohio.

    I checked out that Pino case and the situation appears to be much different. Pino lost in the appeals court; Duvall won. Also, the appeals court itself asked for the Supreme Court to take up the issue in Pino’s case. In Duvall, only the bank wanted the appeal, which carries a lot less weight.

  4. dinsfla says:

    I agree with you and does make sense. Ultimately the borrowers decision of what they know is best for them.

    Here is another Pro Se victory in Ohio Deutsche Bank v. Triplett


    Thanks again.

  5. Ohio Lawyer says:

    There is still the U.S. Bank v. Perry case pending before the Supreme Court involving these issues. The Court accepted the appeal, but held briefing pending the outcome of Duvall. U.S. Bank will now likely ask the Court to set a briefing schedule in Perry. Also, there is a case before the Court awaiting a decision on whether the Court will accept either a discretionary appeal or a certified conflict called Schwartzwald. The Schwartzwalds filed an amicus brief in Duvall.

    The Court really had no choice but to dismiss Duvall. It was no shock at all that it did so. The only shock is that U.S. Bank didn’t argue strongly that the case was still viable. Instead, it conceded that the case was moot. I don’t think it was moot. The release of the mortgage only, at best, rendered the mortgage unenforceable. It did not satisfy the note, no matter what the release said. If the note was still unpaid, there is still a dispute between the parties.

  6. Ohio Lawyer says:

    Yesterday, U.S. Bank filed a motion in the Supreme Court asking the Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss this case as moot. In its motion, the bank argues that the Court should still decide the case even thought the dispute between the parties is moot.


  1. […] motion to reconsider asking the Court to reconsider its dismissal of Duvall as moot has been […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com


Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments