The Sixth District of the Ohio Court of Appeals held that although the mortgagee in a foreclosure action had established that it was the holder of the note, it failed to offer any evidence from which the court could find that it had satisfied all conditions precedent to acceleration of the balance due, and thus, summary judgment was erroneously entered. Judgment reversed.
The Sixth District did, however, accept the legal proposition that “possession of [the] original note by [the] servicing agent, not plaintiff-bank, did not deprive the bank of status as holder.”
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Zokle, 2014-Ohio-636 (6th Dist. Ct. App.)