Ohio Supreme Court Lets Wells Fargo v. Jordan Stand. Foreclosure
Plaintiffs Who Do Not Own the Mortgage at the Time of Filing Lack Standing to Pursue Cases
This is a great story of another American patriot who decided to fight back aganis the banks. These homeowners actuallyt represented themselves against the big banking lawyers at Wells Frago and won.
This is
ANOTHER huge victory for homeowners and one more case to prove the missing note theory is not a theory at all, but the banks worst nightmare.
In this case the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday let stand what may be a landmark decision prohibiting banks, trusts and other loan servicing entities who cannot prove ownership of a mortgage note from foreclosing on homeowners.
This is the judges own words here:
Several judges have held that a complaint must be dismissed if the plaintiff cannot prove that it owned the note and mortgage on the date the complaint was filed. E.g., In re Foreclosure Cases,
(N.D. Ohio 2007), Case Nos. 1:07CV2282,et seq., (Boyko, J.);
In re Foreclosure Cases (S.D. Ohio 2007), 521 F. Supp.2d 650,
(Rose, J.).
Thus, if plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
{¶ 24} In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, supra, where Wells Fargo filed suit on its own behalf but acquired the mortgage from the original lender after filing, the court held that, “in a foreclosure action, a bank that was not the mortgagee when suit was filed cannot cure its lack of standing by subsequently obtaining an interest in the mortgage.”
{¶ 25} Our facts are exactly the same here. Delta Funding Corporation owned the Mortgage for the Property on August 3, 2007, the date WFB filed its complaint against Jordan. On September 24, 2007, WFB filed a
Notice of Filing of Final Judicial Report. Attached to the Notice were a
Final Judicial Report and an Assignment of Mortgage, indicating the Mortgage had been assigned to WFB on August 22, 2007, nearly three weeks after it filed its complaint.
In short, WFB was not the real party in interest on the date it filed its complaint seeking foreclosure against Jordan.
{¶ 26}
Thus, WFB lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against Jordan. As such, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of WFB because WFB was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We sustain Jordan’s first assignment of error, reverse summary judgment, and order the trial court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
{¶ 27} Having sustained Jordan’s first assignment of error, we find his remaining assignments of error are moot.1
{¶ 28} This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is ordered that appellants recover of said appellee costs herein taxed. Appellant's remaining Assignments of Error are included in the Appendix to this Opinion.
Connect with Facebook
Wells Fargo Doesn't Own the Note, Duh!!! 
I'll answer all this tomorrow. But in short, these cases as well as MERS can bring down the banks 110% and get you all real help. 
Linear Mode
