Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.091 (2026)

Claim or defense against assignee of loan

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

January 1, 2007

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 185 - 126th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

No claim or defense under this chapter may be asserted by the attorney general or any consumer against an assignee or purchaser of a mortgage loan for value unless any one of the following applies:

(A) The violation was committed by the assignee or purchaser.

(B) The assignee or purchaser is affiliated by common control with the seller of the loan at the time of such assignment or purchase.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: Ogle v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 924 F. Supp. 2d 902 (S.D. Ohio 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ogle v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 924 F. Supp. 2d 902 (S.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 4× “But if the consumer trans *913 action is in connection with a residential mortgage, “supplier” does not include “an assignee or purchaser of the loan for value, except as otherwise provided in section 1345.091 of the Revised Code.” Under section 1345.”

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Hoge, 2011 Ohio 3839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Ohio has a similar provision for violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.091, which significantly limits liability of assignees.”

Guzman v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank (N.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 5× “, LLC, the Southern District of Ohio addressed whether an assignee may be liable under CSPA: “If the consumer transaction is in connection with a residential mortgage, ‘supplier’ does not include an assignee or purchaser of the loan for value, except as otherwise provided in…”

Bank of New York Mellon v. Brock, 2014 Ohio 3085 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “The court concluded appellants could not recover on their TILA and RESPA claims pursuant to R.C. 1345.091 as the alleged wrongful acts were not committed by BONYM but rather a predecessor.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.