Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Praetorium Secured Fund I, L.P. v. Keehan Tennessee Invests., L.L.C.green2 sentences2026Praetorium Secured Fund I, L.P. v. Keehan Tennessee Invests., L.L.C., 2016-Ohio-8391, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.), quoting Masters Tuxedo Charleston, Inc. v. Krainock, 2002-Ohio-5235 , ¶ 6 (7th Dist.). “‘A cognovit note effectively eliminates the 4 debtor’s opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.’” Cook Family Invests. v. Billings, 2009-Ohio-73, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), quoting Waldman Fin. v. Digital Color Imagining, Inc., 2006-Ohio- 4077, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). 2021Lorain No. 15CA010757, 2016-Ohio-8391, ¶ 9 . | 1 | 2 |
Cook Family Investments v. Billings, 07 Ca 009281 (1-12-2009)green1 sentence2026Praetorium Secured Fund I, L.P. v. Keehan Tennessee Invests., L.L.C., 2016-Ohio-8391, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.), quoting Masters Tuxedo Charleston, Inc. v. Krainock, 2002-Ohio-5235 , ¶ 6 (7th Dist.). “‘A cognovit note effectively eliminates the 4 debtor’s opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.’” Cook Family Invests. v. Billings, 2009-Ohio-73, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), quoting Waldman Fin. v. Digital Color Imagining, Inc., 2006-Ohio- 4077, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Blood v. Nofzingergreen2 sentences2018See R.C. 1336.04(B)(8); Blood v. Nofzinger, 162 Ohio App.3d 545 , 2005-Ohio-3859 , 834 N.E.2d 358, ¶ 50 (6th Dist.). {¶14} The fraudulent transfer act has no application to this case. 2018See R.C. 1336.04(B)(8); Blood v. Nofzinger, 162 Ohio App.3d 545 , 2005-Ohio-3859 , 834 N.E.2d 358, ¶ 50 (6th Dist.). {¶14} The fraudulent transfer act has no application to this case. | 1 | 1 |
Rick Slorp v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfussgreen1 sentence2016Slorp, 587 F.Appx. at 254-56 (in an action against a bank based on allegations of fraud). | 1 | 1 |
Kapila v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp.green1 sentence2013Corp., 184 F.3d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir.1999). (“[A] subsequent assignment of the mortgagee’s interest * * * does not change the nature of the interest of the mortgagor or someone claiming under him.”) Accordingly, the Eighth District concluded that “Rudolph has no standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the mortgage to Deutsche, despite her broad claim that Deutsche failed to comply with the [Pooling and Service Agreement] or its own Indenture Agreement.” Id. at ¶26. {¶23} Similarly here, we are faced with the allegation that an entity prior to appellee did not follow the Pooling | 1 | 1 |
In Re Rheadgreen1 sentence1999See e.g., In re Rhead (D.Ariz. 1995), 179 B.R. 169 , 173 ; In re Beverages International, Ltd. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fogg v. Friesner
green
2 sentences1996Often, judgment on a cognovit note is entered pursuant to a warrant of attorney. ‘A warrant of attorney consented to by a debtor provides for a waiver of prejudgment notice and hearing.’ Fogg v. Friesner (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 139, 140 , 562 N.E.2d 937, 939 .” Dodick v. Dodick (Jan. 25, 1996), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 67385 and 67388, unreported, at 4. 1996Often, judgment on a cognovit note is entered pursuant to a warrant of attorney. ‘A warrant of attorney consented to by a debtor provides for a waiver of prejudgment notice and hearing.’ Fogg v. Friesner (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 139, 140 , 562 N.E.2d 937, 939 .” Dodick v. Dodick (Jan. 25, 1996), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 67385 and 67388, unreported, at 4. | 5 | 1996–2026 |
Bank of New York Mellon v. Froimson
neutral
2 sentences2015Cuyahoga No. 99443, 2013-Ohio-5574, ¶ 18 , and cases cited therein (“the legal principle applied * * * – that a debtor may not challenge a mortgage assignment between an assignor and an assignee because the debtor is not a party to the assignment – has been applied in foreclosure actions in this district and in other courts applying Ohio law”). {¶ 19} Under cases like Romine, supra, and LSF6, supra, appellants would lack standing to attack the validity of the transfer of the note and mortgage. 2014Cuyahoga No. 99443, 2013-Ohio-5574, ¶ 18 , and cases cited therein (“the legal principle applied * * *—that a debtor may not challenge a mortgage assignment between an assignor and an assignee because the debtor is not a party to the assignment—has been applied in foreclosure actions in this district and in other courts applying Ohio law”). {¶22} Under cases like Romine, 10th Dist. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Livonia Property Holdings, L.L.C. v. 12840-12976 Farmington Road Holdings, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2017Holdings, L.L.C. , 717 F.Supp.2d 724 (E.D.Mich.2010), aff'd , 399 Fed.Appx. 97 (6th Cir.2010). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Livonia Properties Holdings, LLC v. 12840-12976 Farmington Road Holdings, LLC
green
1 sentence2017Holdings, L.L.C. , 717 F.Supp.2d 724 (E.D.Mich.2010), aff'd , 399 Fed.Appx. 97 (6th Cir.2010). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George
green
1 sentence2017In the course of its holding, which Judge Dorrian described as "dicta," the majority concluded that "a maker of a note or mortgagor who is facing enforcement at law on the note or enforcement in equity on the mortgage has a personal stake in challenging whether a person claiming to be entitled to enforce such a note or a mortgage has been duly transferred or assigned rights under either or both instruments, regardless of whether or not the challenger is in privity with the person claiming the right to enforce." Id. at ¶ 26. {¶ 38} In concluding that a debtor may so challenge a note's assignmen | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Woodbury Lumber Co. v. McIntosh
green
2 sentences2017It runs against the property and is a charge upon it." Woodbury Lumber Co. v. McIntosh , 125 Vt. 154 , 211 A.2d 240 , 242 (1965). 2017It runs against the property and is a charge upon it." Woodbury Lumber Co. v. McIntosh , 125 Vt. 154 , 211 A.2d 240 , 242 (1965). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Romine
green
1 sentence2015Cuyahoga No. 99443, 2013-Ohio-5574, ¶ 18 , and cases cited therein (“the legal principle applied * * * – that a debtor may not challenge a mortgage assignment between an assignor and an assignee because the debtor is not a party to the assignment – has been applied in foreclosure actions in this district and in other courts applying Ohio law”). {¶ 19} Under cases like Romine, supra, and LSF6, supra, appellants would lack standing to attack the validity of the transfer of the note and mortgage. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone
green
1 sentence2014Franklin No. 13AP-87, 2013-Ohio-5795, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Matson v. Marks
green
2 sentences1988Matson v. Marks (1972), 32 Ohio App. 2d 319 , 61 O.O. 2d 476, 291 N.E. 2d 491 . 1988Matson v. Marks (1972), 32 Ohio App. 2d 319 , 61 O.O. 2d 476, 291 N.E. 2d 491 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.