WHETHER SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED PLAINTIFF.
[14.] WHETHER NATIONSTAR PROOFS WERE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT NATIONSTAR HAD THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND SUPPORT ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OR FINAL JUDGMENT. No. 16AP-185 5
[15.] WHETHER DOCUMENTS THAT NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC RELIED, UPON IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ESTABLISH ITS STATUS AS HAVING POSSESSION AND OR HOLDER WERE PROPERLY CERTIFIED AND AUTHENTICATED.
[16.] WHETHER THE COPIED NOTE AND MORTGAGE WERE ATTACHED TO AN AFFIDAVIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING CERTIFIED AND AUTHENTICATION.
[17.] AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS TIMELY TO STRIKE THESE PORTIONS OF THE SARA P. AFFORD AFFIDAVIT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56(E) AND RULES OF EVIDENCE.
[18.] WHETHER COPIED NOTE, MORTGAGE, ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, PAYMENT HISTORY AND DEMAND LETTER SATISFIED THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENTS OF 56(E), WHICH STATES THAT "DOCUMENTS" ATTACH TO AN AFFIDAVIT MUST BE CERTIFIED OR SWORN TO, AND IF NOT, WHETHER DEFENDANT'S MOVE TO STRIKE THIS PORTION OF SARA P. AFFORD AFFIDAVIT IS TIMELY.
[19.] WHETHER SARA P. AFFORD AFFIDAVIT AT 5 AVERRING THAT....." that true and exact copies of the Note, Mortgage, Assignment of Mortgage, Payment History and Demand Letter are attached hereto...." SATISFIED THE VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF 56(E), WHICH STATES THAT ....." 'CERTIFIED' COPIES ATTACHED ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRODUCTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL".....IF NOT, WHETHER DEFENDANT'S MOVE TO STRIKE THIS PORTION OF SARA AFFORD AFFIDAVIT IS TIMELY [emphasize added].
[20.] WHETHER AN AFFIDAVIT BASED ON PERSONAL REVIEW OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS PROVIDE A BASIS FOR AFFIANT TO TESTIFY TO POSSESSION OF THE NOTE.
[21.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING DEFENDANT TIME AS REQUIRED BY RULE 56.( C) AND OR Local Rule 11(I)(1) TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PRIOR TO THE TRIAL COURT ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. No. 16AP-185 6
[22.] WHETHER DISCOVERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED PRIOR TO THE TRIAL COURT ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF NOT, WHETHER DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FILED FEBRUARY 29TH, 2016 AND OTHER PREVIOUS FILINGS WAS TIMELY FILED; AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT DEFAULT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, WHETHER THIS ENTIRE CASE SHOULD BE RULED AT THIS TIME IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY APPEAL'S COURT OR REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT TO THE DEFAULT AND OR DISCOVERY.
[23.] IF DEFENDANT SHOULD PREVAIL IN HIS APPEAL- WHETHER DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES WAS TIMELY AND PROPER.1
{¶ 8} Before reviewing Payne's assignments of error, we must address the affidavit that Payne includes in his appellant's brief. Appellate review is limited to the record as it existed at the time the trial court rendered its judgment. Wiltz v. Clark Schaefer Hackett & Co., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-64, 2011-Ohio-5616, ¶ 13. Payne's affidavit was not before the trial court when it issued the judgment on appeal. Consequently, we will not consider Payne's affidavit when deciding this appeal. {¶ 9} By his first and second assignments of error, Payne argues that the trial court erred in granting default judgment against him. Payne misreads the trial court's judgment. The trial court only granted