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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1933–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grinder v. Schaafgreen2 sentences2026See Grinder v. Schaaf, 2025-Ohio-4723 (11th Dist.) (finding mechanic's lien affidavits invalid because the notarial certificate contained only an acknowledgment rather than a jurat). {¶ 38} The Statement of Facts contains Officer Rawlins's signature and a notary stamp with Sergeant Porter's name, but nothing indicates that an oath was actually administered. 2026See Grinder v. Schaaf, 2025-Ohio-4723 (11th Dist.) (finding mechanic's lien affidavits invalid because the notarial certificate contained only an acknowledgment rather than a jurat). {¶ 38} The Statement of Facts contains Officer Rawlins's signature and a notary stamp with Sergeant Porter's name, but nothing indicates that an oath was actually administered. | 2 | 2 |
Noland v. Burns (In Re Burns)green2 sentences2017The conflicting description of James Stocks' mortgagor status and the omission of their names in the acknowledgment clause of the mortgage do not allow the Stockses to invalidate the Mortgage." Further, U.S. Bank argues that the "Stockses admitted in their Answer that the Mortgage attached to the Complaint was validly executed in connection with the Note." According to U.S. Bank, the "bankruptcy cases cited by the Stockses are completely inapposite." U.S. Bank asserts that "a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of 'a hypothetical bona fide purchaser as of the commencement of the case.' In r 2016In line with this case law, the Sixth District has stated that “[a] close reading of the cases shows that certificates of acknowledgment substantially comply when they in some way identify the person making the acknowledgment.” Campbell at ¶ 44; see also Fifth Third Bank at ¶ 54 (“The case law * * * ‘requires identification of the mortgagor within the acknowledgment clause or sufficient information within the acknowledgment clause so that the person whose signature was acknowledged can be identified through a review of the remainder of the mortgage.’”), quoting In re Burns, 435 B.R. 503, 517 ( | 1 | 3 |
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Kermeengreen1 sentence2013Darke No. 2011 CA 2, 2012-Ohio-1655, ¶48 (reasoning that omission of the mortgagor's wife’s name from the acknowledgment clause of a mortgage did not preclude the mortgage from securing the wife’s interest in the property). | 1 | 1 |
SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v. Reamgreen2 sentences2012CITIMORTGAGE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH UNDISPUTED PROPER RULE 56(c) EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO REFORMATION OF THE MORTGAGE.” {¶ 38} CitiMortgage asserts that Kimberly’s name was inadvertently omitted from the granting clause and the acknowledgment clause of the Mortgage due to scrivener’s error and mutual mistake, and that it is entitled to reform the Mortgage. {¶ 39} We initially note that this Court reviews mortgages under general principles 18 of contract law, and we presume that the parties’ intent “‘resides in the language they have chosen to employ in the agreement.’” SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v 2012CITIMORTGAGE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH UNDISPUTED PROPER RULE 56(c) EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO REFORMATION OF THE MORTGAGE.” {¶ 38} CitiMortgage asserts that Kimberly’s name was inadvertently omitted from the granting clause and the acknowledgment clause of the Mortgage due to scrivener’s error and mutual mistake, and that it is entitled to reform the Mortgage. {¶ 39} We initially note that this Court reviews mortgages under general principles 18 of contract law, and we presume that the parties’ intent “‘resides in the language they have chosen to employ in the agreement.’” SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v | 1 | 1 |
Seabrooke v. Garciagreen1 sentence2012Cuyahoga No. 81097, 2003-Ohio-995 , ¶ 20; see also Seabrooke v. Garcia, 7 Ohio 22 App.3d 167, 169, 454 N.E.2d 961 (9th Dist. 1982), citing Denison and noting the “reasoning behind such a rule is to bind the parties to that which they intended. | 1 | 1 |
Fountain Skin Care v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2012CITIMORTGAGE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH UNDISPUTED PROPER RULE 56(c) EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO REFORMATION OF THE MORTGAGE.” {¶ 38} CitiMortgage asserts that Kimberly’s name was inadvertently omitted from the granting clause and the acknowledgment clause of the Mortgage due to scrivener’s error and mutual mistake, and that it is entitled to reform the Mortgage. {¶ 39} We initially note that this Court reviews mortgages under general principles 18 of contract law, and we presume that the parties’ intent “‘resides in the language they have chosen to employ in the agreement.’” SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v 2012CITIMORTGAGE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH UNDISPUTED PROPER RULE 56(c) EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO REFORMATION OF THE MORTGAGE.” {¶ 38} CitiMortgage asserts that Kimberly’s name was inadvertently omitted from the granting clause and the acknowledgment clause of the Mortgage due to scrivener’s error and mutual mistake, and that it is entitled to reform the Mortgage. {¶ 39} We initially note that this Court reviews mortgages under general principles 18 of contract law, and we presume that the parties’ intent “‘resides in the language they have chosen to employ in the agreement.’” SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v | 1 | 1 |
Rieser v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co. (In Re Wahl)green1 sentence2011Compare In re Wahl (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2009), 407 B.R. 883 (an acknowledgment clause does not substantially comply if it contains the name of only one of the two grantors, does not say “the above named grantor(s),” and does not use plural pronouns or language), with In re Fryman (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2004), 314 B.R. 137 (an acknowledgment clause substantially complied when it contained only one of the grantors’ names but included the handwritten pronouns “they” and “their”). {¶ 49} Aames argues that because Luettke acted as both a notary and a witness, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to wheth | 1 | 1 |
Menninger v. First Franklin Financial Corp. (In Re Fryman)green1 sentence2011Compare In re Wahl (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2009), 407 B.R. 883 (an acknowledgment clause does not substantially comply if it contains the name of only one of the two grantors, does not say “the above named grantor(s),” and does not use plural pronouns or language), with In re Fryman (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2004), 314 B.R. 137 (an acknowledgment clause substantially complied when it contained only one of the grantors’ names but included the handwritten pronouns “they” and “their”). {¶ 49} Aames argues that because Luettke acted as both a notary and a witness, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to wheth | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Middletown v. Goldberg
green
2 sentences2026The acknowledgment clause, by its own terms, does not even purport to apply to Middletown officers. {¶ 39} We note that the Middletown complaint form used in Middletown v. Goldberg, 2017-Ohio-788 (12th Dist.), which this court upheld, contained explicit language that the officer's statement was "'sworn to before me and signed in my presence.'" Id. at ¶ 13. 2026The acknowledgment clause, by its own terms, does not even purport to apply to Middletown officers. {¶ 39} We note that the Middletown complaint form used in Middletown v. Goldberg, 2017-Ohio-788 (12th Dist.), which this court upheld, contained explicit language that the officer's statement was "'sworn to before me and signed in my presence.'" Id. at ¶ 13. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Mid-American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Gymnastics Internat'l, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Bank & Trust v. Gymnastics Internatl., Inc. (1982), 6 Ohio App.3d 11, 12 , 6 OBR 34, 451 N.E.2d 1243 , this court was asked whether an acknowledgment clause that identified the mortgagor corporation, instead of the individual signers, substantially complied with the requirements of R.C. 5301.01. 2011Bank & Trust v. Gymnastics Internatl., Inc. (1982), 6 Ohio App.3d 11, 12 , 6 OBR 34, 451 N.E.2d 1243 , this court was asked whether an acknowledgment clause that identified the mortgagor corporation, instead of the individual signers, substantially complied with the requirements of R.C. 5301.01. | 2 | 2008–2011 |
Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012CITIMORTGAGE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH UNDISPUTED PROPER RULE 56(c) EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO REFORMATION OF THE MORTGAGE.” {¶ 38} CitiMortgage asserts that Kimberly’s name was inadvertently omitted from the granting clause and the acknowledgment clause of the Mortgage due to scrivener’s error and mutual mistake, and that it is entitled to reform the Mortgage. {¶ 39} We initially note that this Court reviews mortgages under general principles 18 of contract law, and we presume that the parties’ intent “‘resides in the language they have chosen to employ in the agreement.’” SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v 2012CITIMORTGAGE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH UNDISPUTED PROPER RULE 56(c) EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO REFORMATION OF THE MORTGAGE.” {¶ 38} CitiMortgage asserts that Kimberly’s name was inadvertently omitted from the granting clause and the acknowledgment clause of the Mortgage due to scrivener’s error and mutual mistake, and that it is entitled to reform the Mortgage. {¶ 39} We initially note that this Court reviews mortgages under general principles 18 of contract law, and we presume that the parties’ intent “‘resides in the language they have chosen to employ in the agreement.’” SFJV 2005, L.L.C. v | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Wayne Building & Loan Co. v. Hoover
green
2 sentences2011Thus, the issues we must resolve are whether Fisher acknowledged the document to Luettke and whether Luettke certified that acknowledgment. {¶ 40} In Wayne Bldg. & Loan Co. v. Hoover (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 62, 65 , 41 O.O.2d 279 , 231 N.E.2d 873 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether merely signing the document in the presence of a notary public satisfied the acknowledgment requirement of R.C. 5301.01. 2011Thus, the issues we must resolve are whether Fisher acknowledged the document to Luettke and whether Luettke certified that acknowledgment. {¶ 40} In Wayne Bldg. & Loan Co. v. Hoover (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 62, 65 , 41 O.O.2d 279 , 231 N.E.2d 873 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether merely signing the document in the presence of a notary public satisfied the acknowledgment requirement of R.C. 5301.01. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Citifinancial, Inc. v. Howard, 6-08-08 (9-15-2008)
neutral
2 sentences2011No. 6-08-08, 2008-Ohio-4648 , 2008 WL 4193051 (a mortgage is in substantial compliance where the mortgagor signs in his individual capacity, but the acknowledgment clause named the individual in his corporate capacity). {¶ 46} In a later case, the Third District Court of Appeals held that an acknowledgment clause that contained the name of the mortgagee bank instead of the mortgagor substantially complied with the requirements of formality. 2011No. 6-08-08, 2008-Ohio-4648 , 2008 WL 4193051 (a mortgage is in substantial compliance where the mortgagor signs in his individual capacity, but the acknowledgment clause named the individual in his corporate capacity). {¶ 46} In a later case, the Third District Court of Appeals held that an acknowledgment clause that contained the name of the mortgagee bank instead of the mortgagor substantially complied with the requirements of formality. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Upton v. Tribilcock
green
1 sentence2002In addition, the choice of venue clause is incorporated in the change order to 028-010 and faxed order 031-002, because: 1) the orders were printed on the front of the same form as orders 028-010, 033-003 and the change order to 033-003; and 2) they contained an acknowledgment clause that referred to the "term[s] and conditions herein attached or file[d] with [appellee] * * *." {¶ 23} The remaining issue to be decided is whether the inclusion of a choice of venue clause in a series of written purchase orders executed by the parties constitutes a "course of dealing" that may be used to suppleme | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sweeney v. City of Butte
neutral
2 sentences1933Our attention has been further directed to the case of Sweeney v City of Butte, 64 Mont., 230 , 208 P., 943 . 1933Our attention has been further directed to the case of Sweeney v City of Butte, 64 Mont., 230 , 208 P., 943 . | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.