Court Opinion

ID: 9764789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:40:12.685874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:01.663055
License: Public Domain

*297STEELMAN, Judge
dissenting.
While this case presents a number of troubling issues, the conspicuous nature of the cognovit wáming is not one of them. I must respectfully dissent.
A copy of the actual note in question, containing the cognovit warning is attached to the majority opinion. The warning appears in 'all capital letters below the signature lines. It is clearly the most conspicuous portion of the document. Because of its placement immediately below the'signature lines, it is especially conspicuous, because the borrower would have to actually see that language in order to execute the document. I would hold that the cognovit warning on page three of the Demand Cognovit Promissory Note met the requirements of Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 2323.13(D) (2010) that it appear:
directly above or below the space or spaces provided for the signature of the makers, or other person authorizing the confession, in such type size or distinctive marking that it appears more clearly and conspicuously than anything else on the document....
This case is controlled by Medina Supply Company, Inc. v. Corrado, 689 N.E.2d 600 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996), which is a published case. Medina holds:
In the case at bar, the note signed by defendants contained, word for word, the statutorily mandated warning contained in [Ohio Revised Code] 2323.13(D). This warning appeared in all capital letters immediately above the signatures of defendants. Defendants argue that this warning is insufficient because it does not appear more clearly and conspicuously than anything else on the document. Specially, defendants point to the fact that the title of the note, ‘NOTE.’ is in capitals and also underlined, whereas the warning is merely in capitals with no underlining. We find this argument to be specious. First, a four-letter title is an inadequate basis for comparison to a paragraph. An objective review of the cognovit note shows the warning prominently displayed immediately above the signatures. The document itself is only one page long. Most important, the warning is the only paragraph set off entirely in capital letters. Thus, in type, location, and proportion, the warning satisfies the law. The statute does not require the warning be a flashing neon light. Accordingly, we find that the cognovit note complied with [Ohio Revised Code] 2323.13.
*298Id. at 603. The only notable difference between the cognovit warning in Medina and the one in the instant case is that in Medina the warning appeared immediately above the signature lines, rather than immediately below the signature lines. Since Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 2323.13 provides that the warning can either be “directly above or below” the signature lines, this is not a legally significant difference. The cognovit warning on the note in question was the most conspicuous portion of the document, and complies with the Ohio statute.
The fact that the note in the instant case is three pages long and each of the section headings is capitalized and underlined does not make this note significantly different from that in Medina. As noted in Medina, the most important fact is that “the warning is the only paragraph set off entirely in capital letters.” 689 N.E.2d at 603. This is present in the note in the instant case, just as it was in Medina. I would hold that the cognovit warning on the note in question complies with the Ohio Statute.