Showing 39 posts by Vincent E. Mauer.
A prior blog post analyzed Green Tree Servicing v. Asterino-Starcher, et al., 2018-Ohio-977 (Franklin Cty. App., March 15, 2018), which advises, in part, “[a] foreclosure proceeding is a two-step process involving, first, the enforcement of a debt obligation, and, second, the creditor's right to collect against the security given by the borrower for that debt. . . . There is reason to distinguish the action on the note from the ensuing action against the associated collateral. The first claim involves only the maker of the note and the person entitled to enforce it. The second joins all those with an interest in the mortgaged property.” This article discusses what happens if a secured lender believes that quote and tries to collect the mortgage debt through two separate lawsuits. Read More ›
Foreclosure cases often proceed without participation or significant defense by the obligor / mortgagor because that party is without both any defense and any funds to pay counsel. That happened in Green Tree Servicing v. Asterino-Starcher, et al., 2018-Ohio-977 (Franklin Cty. App., March 15, 2018). In Green Tree Servicing, as sometimes occurs, a junior lienor had the motivation and resources to contest the foreclosure. Read More ›
Deal lawyers often seek to insure an outcome using multiple approaches simultaneously; this is colloquially labeled a “belt and suspenders” approach. Ohio’s Sixth Appellate District recently reminded us of the danger of over lawyering in an effort to secure a legal position. Read More ›
Internal Revenue Service liens attach to all a taxpayer’s “property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” 26 U.S.C. Section 6321. A taxpayer’s “property” is determined by relevant state law, but federal law determines lien priority. Read More ›
Ohio Revised Code Section 1336.07 is Ohio’s codification of the “Remedies” section of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”). The first and primary remedy listed in O.R.C. Section 1336.07 (and the UFTA) is “avoidance of the transfer” that is improper under the statute. Read More ›
Guarantor was the spouse of a business owner. Spouse’s business opened a deposit account and a disbursement account at Bank 1. Later, Bank1 extended to Spouse’s business a commercial revolving loan with a borrowing limit of $135,000; that loan provided overdraft protection by funding the disbursement account if the business’ account balance went below zero. To obtain the $135,000 loan, Spouse and Guarantor executed an unlimited commercial guaranty.  Bank1 and Spouse executed multiple extensions of both the $135,000 commercial revolving loan. Read More ›
Defendant is a mother who received the news all parents of teenagers everywhere desire and fear: Congratulations, your daughter is admitted to college; but given the costs, she will need a loan to attend. According to Plaintiff’s complaint: Read More ›
An Ohio residential loan and mortgage were made and recorded in 2008. After default, a foreclosure case was started, but not completed – it was dismissed without prejudice. Read More ›
On March 4, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in First Merit Bank v. Inks, 138 Ohio St.3d 384. In this case, the court held that the statute of frauds prohibited both a claim and the assertion of a defense by guarantors who alleged an oral amendment of a written forbearance agreement. That forbearance agreement came within the statute of frauds because in addition to settling the liability of the borrower and guarantors, it would have impacted the mortgage securing the debt – specifically by releasing that mortgage. Read More ›
On the somewhat unusual occasions when your judgment debtor has assets, the question turns to how do I maximize my judgment and collect every penny legitimately owed to my client? Here are some thoughts: Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
Courtney Rogers Perrin practices in the Nashville office as a member of the Firm’s Electronic Payments and Blockchain practice groups. She assists clients with regulatory compliance, contract negotiations, acquisitions and fund formation relating to credit card processing and fintech enterprises, including smart contracts and virtual currency matters.