Lorain County Appellate Decisions for November, 2013

The Court of Appeals released four decisions for cases on appeal from Lorain County courts. Summaries of those decisions are set forth below. 

Deutsche Bank v. Holloway, 2013-Ohio-5194 was released on November 25, 2013. The decisions reversed a decision from the Lorain County Common Pleas Court granting a motion for summary judgment to the bank. The trial court was reversed because the bank didn't show that it had standing to bring the foreclosure. The decision relied on the Ohio Supreme Court decision of   Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017, ¶ 28 and the Ninth District's own decision in BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP. v. McFerren, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26384, 2013-Ohio-3228, ¶ 8, 13. The latter decision holds that a plaintiff in a foreclosure action must show that it holds both the note and the mortgage when it files the action. 

In re A.H., 2013-Ohio-5080 was released on November 19, 2013. The appeal was from a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division,  revoking probation for A.H. for 90 days. The appellate court found the appeal to be moot since he had already served the 90 day revocation period. 

State v. Ditzler, 2013-Ohio-4969 was released on November 12, 2013. The appeal was from a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court denying a motion to void Mr. Ditzler's sexually violent predator specification. Ditzler argued that based on a Ohio Supreme Court decision that had held that a defendant could not be found guilty of such a specification if the predicate offense was not prior to the specification date. The Court of Appeals found that since Ditzler had not appealed this issue back in 2000 when he was convicted, there was no appeal pending from him at the time the Ohio Supreme Court released its decision. Therefore he could not raise the issue on this appeal. 

A.S. v. P.F., 2013-Ohio-4857 was released on November 4, 2013. The decision affirmed the granting of a civil stalking protection order by Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. The decision is very fact specific. The Court of Appeals noted that the decision of the trial court was done under the recently amended Civ. R. 65.1 which allows a magistrate to issue a civil stalking protection order and that order may be reviewed on appeal without the appellant having filed for review by the trial court prior to the appeal. Judge Carr dissented from the holding since she believed that the appellee did not establish a basis for the protection order.