In the case of Everhome Mtge. Co. v. Rowland, 2008-Ohio-1282 (10th Appellate District, March 20, 2008)(Klatt, J.), the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment for foreclosure and found that there existed a genuine issue of fact whether the plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage.
The court held that under Ohio rules of civil procedure, [e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.". Civ.R.17(A). The real party in interest in a foreclosure action is the current holder of the note and mortgage. Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v. Smith, Hamilton App. No. C-061069, 2007-Ohio-5874, at para. 18. A party that fails to establish itself as the current holder is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford (2001), 146 Ohio App. 3d 673, 677, 679-680.
The court found that the note and mortgage in this case did not identify the plaintiff as the lender, but set forth a different entity as lender. To prove its status as the current holder of the note and mortgage, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit testimony of an officer which merely stated that the attached documents were true copies of the note and mortgage. The court concluded that this affidavit was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff was the current holder of the note as it failed to specify how or when it became the holder of the note and mortgage. The court stated that without evidence demonstrating how it received an interest in the note and mortgage, the plaintiff cannot establish itself as the holder. According, the court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff was the real party in interest and reversed the trial court's summary judgment.
