X hits on this document





8 / 15

mortgage. Accordingly, Deutsche Bank was the real party in interest at the time

the lawsuit was filed.2

{¶ 19} Third, appellants state that Nick Brdar was an unnecessary party to

the lawsuit. Nick Brdar is not a party to this appeal, and appellants have no

standing to raise this issue on his behalf. Further, insofar as misjoinder is

alleged, Civ.R. 21 clearly states that “misjoinder of parties is not ground for

dismissal of an action.”

{¶ 20} Fourth, appellants argue that Deutsche Bank failed to appear for the

default hearing and that the attorney who appeared on its behalf was not the

attorney of record. Our review shows that the first default hearing of which

appellants are complaining was continued. Thus, any error caused by the

appearance of substitute counsel for Deutsche Bank was harmless. Further,

insofar as the motion for default judgment did not pertain to appellants, they

lack standing to raise any issues pertaining thereto.

{¶ 21} Fifth, appellants claim that Robert Brdar’s second mortgage should

have been given priority over Deutsche Bank’s lien. Appellants argue that

Robert Brdar’s second mortage should take precedence because Deutsche Bank

2 This case is distinguishable from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jordon, Cuyahoga App. No. 91675, 2009-Ohio-1092, relied upon by appellants at oral argument. In that case, the mortgage was not assigned to Wells Fargo Bank until after the complaint was filed; therefore, Wells Fargo Bank was not a real party in interest on the date the action was brought against Jordon. Here, the mortgage, albeit not yet filed, was assigned to Deutsche Bank before the lawsuit was filed, making Deutsche Bank the real party in interest.

Document info
Document views50
Page views50
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 13:00:40 UTC 2017