X hits on this document

40 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

10 / 15

never presented any evidence that they failed to actually receive service of the

motions. With respect to the magistrate’s decision, the record reflects that the

clerk’s office issued notice of the decision. Also, appellants filed objections to the

decision. Accordingly, from the record before us, proper service can be presumed

to have occurred.

{¶ 23} Finally, appellants make conclusory assertions that Deutsche Bank

failed to prove its case, that the complaint should have been dismissed, and that

judgment should have been granted to appellants on their counterclaim.3 We

decline to address such unsupported claims.

{¶ 24} Appellants’ first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 25} Appellants’ tenth, twelfth, and sixteenth assignments of error

challenge the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of

Deutsche Bank. The assigned errors provide as follows:

{¶ 26} “10. [Appellants] never got a chance to have their issues of material

fact and accompanying law heard.”

{¶ 27} “12. Because [appellants] never got their day in court, the fact that

[Deutsche Bank’s] mortgage involved fraud in the inducement was not properly

addressed.”

3 The counterclaim made the broad assertions that the complaint was “wrongfully, purposely, and fraudulently filed” and that appellants had “endured great emotional pain, stress, and embarrassment and hardship.”

Document info
Document views40
Page views40
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 10:05:20 UTC 2016
Pages15
Paragraphs317
Words3025

Comments