Deutsche Bank V. Holden | 9th Dist. Appellate Court in Ohio - Inconsistencies between the (2) different copies of the note and the lack of an explanation based on personal knowledge

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Deutsche Bank V. Holden | 9th Dist. Appellate Court in Ohio – Inconsistencies between the (2) different copies of the note and the lack of an explanation based on personal knowledge

Deutsche Bank V. Holden | 9th Dist. Appellate Court in Ohio – Inconsistencies between the (2) different copies of the note and the lack of an explanation based on personal knowledge

STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF SUMMIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST.
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE
Appellee

v.

GLENN E. HOLDEN, et al.
Appellants

EXCERPT:

{~14} In the recent case of Fannie Mae v. Trahey, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CAOI0209,
2013-0hio-3071, this Court also faced a similar issue when the foreclosing lender attached a
copy of the note to its complaint that contained a blank indorsement from the original lender. In
that case, the foreclosing lender filed an amended complaint, which included a different copy of
the note. The note attached to the amended complaint demonstrated an indorsement from the
original lender to another lender and then a second indorsement from that lender in blank. We
concluded that the inconsistencies between the indorsements contained on the submitted notes
created a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment as we could not
ascertain which lender possessed the note at the time the foreclosure was filed. Id. at ~ 12. But
see Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB, N.D.Ohio No. 1:07 CV 2739,2013 WL 4784292 (Sept. 6,
2013) (slip opinion) (distinguishing Trahey and finding that two different copies of identical
promissory note did not create genuine issue of material fact so as to preclude summary
judgment from being granted to the foreclosing lender).

{~15} Due to the inconsistencies between the copies of the note and the lack of an
explanation based on personal knowledge as to how Deutsche Bank came to offer two different
copies of the note into the record, this Court concludes that there is a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Deutsche Bank was the holder of the note at the time the complaint was filed.
Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting Deutsche Bank’s motion for summary judgment on
its foreclosure complaint.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. Lindgren v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Fla 4DCA | A complaint based on “information and belief,” and not personal knowledge, is insufficient. JANICE RUBBO LINDGREN, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,...
  2. HSBC BANK USA v. Beirne, 2012 Ohio 1386 – Ohio: Court of Appeals, 9th Appellate Dist. | HSBC failed to establish that it was the real party in interest, Holder & Owner of Note 2012 Ohio 1386 HSBC BANK USA, Appellee, v. MARTIN J....
  3. Fannie Mae v. Trahey – Ohio Appeals Court | Fannie Mae filed TWO INCONSISTENT copies of the promissory note, each containing different indorsements. STATE OF OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL...
  4. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB v. Harvey, 2013 Ohio 2666 – Ohio: Court of Appeals, 9th Appellate Dist. | THE CASE WAS NOT LITIGATED BY THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 2013-Ohio-2666 FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Appellee, v. JIBAU HARVEY, et al.,...
  5. BENNETT vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY | FL 4DCA – DBNT filed copies of the note with two allonges and the mortgage…Both allonges were signed by the same individual, Elizabeth Causseaux DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH...

This post was written by:

- who has written 6848 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

One Response to “Deutsche Bank V. Holden | 9th Dist. Appellate Court in Ohio – Inconsistencies between the (2) different copies of the note and the lack of an explanation based on personal knowledge”

  1. GuyFawkesLives says:

    Isn’t this “two different notes with different endorsements” getting to be a theme here at stop foreclosure fraud???

    Hmmmmm…..I wonder if people who are selling their home know that the bankers aren’t DISCHARGING THE DEBT, but only ELIMINATING THE LIEN.

    This shit won’t stop until people who are selling their home start demanding to receive the original note BACK prior to reconveyance.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
RR Compliance Consulting Inc was established to provide training and support services to the Loss Mitigation Consulting Community.  There is a huge void in the market for this training since those who are truly practicing in the field have neither the time nor interest in providing this training.
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Damian Figueroa, South Florida Realtor, Real Estate Agent
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments