X hits on this document

56 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 15

{¶ 15} Appellants first assignment of error provides as follows: “1.

[Appellants] should [have] been granted judgment on their answer(s),

counterclaim(s) and accompanying motion(s) to dismiss [Deutsche Bank’s] case.”

{¶ 16} Appellants raise several arguments under this assignment of error.

{¶ 17} First, they claim that Deutsche Bank is a Pennsylvania Corporation

and

never

established

standing

to

sue

in

Ohio.

Our

review

reflects

that

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed this action acting as a trustee of a

securitized loan. Deutsche Bank was not required to comply with the licensing

requirements as stated in R.C. 1703.01 through R.C. 1703.31. See Citibank, NA

v. Eckmeyer, Portage App. No. 2008-P-0069, 2009-Ohio-2435.

{¶ 18} Second, appellants argue that Deutsche Bank lacked standing to

bring the action on April 10, 2008. The real party in interest in a foreclosure

action is the current holder of the note and mortgage. Everhome Mtge. Co. v.

Rowland, Franklin App. No. 07AP-615, 2008-Ohio-1282. Although Deutsche

Bank did not record the assignment of rights to the mortgage until after the

complaint was filed, the record shows that the mortgage was assigned to

Deutsche Bank on March 1, 2008. Deutsche Bank also filed an allonge of the

note, as well as affidavits verifying that it was the holder of the note and

Document info
Document views56
Page views56
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 02:39:04 UTC 2017
Pages15
Paragraphs317
Words3025

Comments