Consumer complaint received 2017-05-05
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (OH)

This complaint stems from a decade-old foreclosure case, and specifically involves the attempted collection of a 'dormant ' mortgage debt. Ohio law is crystal clear that when a debt is not 'executed upon ' or 'renewed ' within a five-year period, the debt is considered dormant, and the lien is extinguished. Ohio law further defines the 'execution ' of debt to as " a process of court, issued by its clerk, and directed to the sheriff of the county. '' ( XXXX XXXX ). In my case, there was no 'execution ' as defined above, nor a 'certificate of judgment ' renewed during the period of time from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. As such, the Summary Judgment issues by the Court of Common Please became dormant on XX/XX/XXXX. Nonetheless, on three occasions since that time - specifically XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX - the alleged Plaintiff in my case file a Praecipe Order of Sale with the Court in what amounts to an attempt to collect a debt that I currently do not owe as a result of the statutorily-imposed dormancy. The specific statute is Ohio Revised Code 2329.07, which codifies when a Judgment may become dormant : ( A ) (( 1 ) If neither execution on a judgment rendered in a court of record or certified to the clerk of the court of common pleas in the county in which the judgment was rendered is issued, nor a certificate of judgment for obtaining a lien upon lands and tenements is issued and filed, as provided in sections 2329.02 and 2329.04 of the Revised Code, within five years from the date of the judgment or within five years from the date of the issuance of the last execution thereon or the issuance and filing of the last such certificate, whichever is later, then, unless the judgment is in favor of the state, the judgment shall be dormant and shall not operate as a lien upon the estate of the judgment debtor. One bankruptcy judge has explained the operation of these statutes as follows from In XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. Ohio XX/XX/XXXX ) : Execution and dormancy statutes are to be strictly construed. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ohio St. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Ohio XX/XX/XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 13 Kan. App. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Okla. XXXX ).
Section XXXX  sets forth the only means in Ohio for preventing a judgment from becoming dormant. The clear language of the statute requires the issuance of execution or a certificate of judgment before expiration of the original five-year period to prevent dormancy.
Section XXXX  provides that in order to extend the effectiveness of a judgment beyond the initial five  year period there must be either execution or the issuance of a new certificate of judgment before expiration of the original execution or certificate of judgment. As a result of the above, the law is clear that the judgment is dormant, and any action to collect on the debt is a violation of state and federal law.