Court Opinion

ID: 9874211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:00:44.763092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:46.077207
License: Public Domain

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., DISSENTING:
  

   {¶ 25} I respectfully dissent and would find that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank. In 2009, Deutsche Bank commenced a foreclosure action against the Baxters based on the same note and mortgage at issue in this action. After having granted foreclosure to Deutsche Bank in 2010, the trial court vacated the judgment in 2014, finding that Deutsche Bank failed to present evidence that it held a valid promissory note or mortgage at the time the complaint was filed. The action was dismissed without prejudice; however, the trial court found that Deutsche Bank premised its standing on its alleged ownership of a promissory note lacking any indorsements, either in blank or specifically transferring the note to Deutsche Bank. The court further found that the mortgage, assigned to Deutsche Bank, was invalid because it was transferred under a power of attorney that had been revoked by operation of bankruptcy law and cited
   
    In re Maplewood Poultry Co.
   
   ,
   
    2 B.R. 550
   
   (Bankr. D. Me.1980).
  

   {¶ 26} Deutsche Bank later refiled the action seeking an order of foreclosure based on the note. Deutsche Bank presented different evidence to the court in the instant refiled action, specifically with regard to the promissory note allegedly being indorsed in blank. I believe the findings of the court in the prior action, however, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Deutsche Bank has the right to enforce the note and mortgage that would preclude summary judgment.