Atlantica, LLC v. Salahuddin

1

2024-Ohio-5780

Atlantica, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ameena C. Salahuddin, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23AP-35

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

December 10, 2024

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No 17CV-11307)

On brief:

Clunk Hoose Co., LPA, Laura C. Infante, and Ashley E. Mueller, for appellee.

Ameena C. Salahuddin, pro se.

Argued:

Laura C. Infante.

Ameena C. Salahuddin.

DECISION

BOGGS J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ameena C. Salahuddin, appeals the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Atlantica, LLC ("Atlantica"), following a bench trial on remand from this court. Also before the court is Salahuddin's motion to deny or quash writ of possession, filed December 8, 2024. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment and deny Salahuddin's motion.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Wilmington Savings Bank Fund Society, FSB, d.b.a. Christiana Trust as Owner Trustee of The Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III ("Wilmington"), filed this foreclosure action against Salahuddin and other defendants who are not parties to this appeal, seeking money damages, foreclosure, and other equitable relief in December 2017. It alleged that, in 2008, Salahuddin purchased a home located at 6147 Olde Orchard Drive, Columbus, Ohio, 43213, with a loan she obtained from The American Eagle Mortgage Corporation. Salahuddin's loan was memorialized in a promissory note ("the Note") that she signed on or about October 16, 2008, and the loan was insured through the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"). In the Note, Salahuddin promised to pay The American Eagle Mortgage Corporation or its transferee the principal amount of $132,863.00, plus interest at the rate of 6.25 percent per annum. As part of the same loan transaction, Salahuddin executed a mortgage deed ("the Mortgage") for the property, as security for the Note. Wilmington attached to its complaint copies of the Note and the Mortgage, both of which had been assigned to other entities, including Wilmington. Wilmington alleged that Salahuddin had defaulted in payment on the Note and that it had exercised its option under the Note to accelerate the debt and to declare the entire debt immediately due and payable. Wilmington demanded payment of the full outstanding principal balance of $124,902.53, with interest at the rate of 6.25 percent per annum from November 1, 2012. It also sought to foreclose on the mortgage.

{¶ 3} Salahuddin filed an answer to Wilmington's complaint and a counterclaim in February 2018. In her counterclaim, Salahuddin asserted a claim against Wilmington for violations of 27 U.S.C. 2605, part of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Wilmington filed a reply to Salahuddin's counterclaim, in which it denied Salahuddin's allegations.

{¶ 4} In September 2018, Wilmington filed a motion for summary judgment on its claims and on Salahuddin's counterclaim. Salahuddin responded with a memorandum in opposition to Wilmington's motion and her own motion for summary judgment. In pertinent part, Salahuddin argued that Wilmington or its predecessors in interest had failed to perform the loss-mitigation servicing measures required by FHA regulations prior to filing for foreclosure. She also argued that Wilmington had violated provisions of the RESPA and the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.

{¶ 5} On March 6, 2019, the trial court issued a judgment entry and decree of foreclosure. It held that all necessary parties had been served and that all defendants other than Salahuddin and the Franklin County Treasurer were in default and were forever barred from asserting any right, title, or interest in and to the subject property. The trial court granted Wilmington's motion for summary judgment, denied Salahuddin's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Salahuddin's counterclaim with prejudice.

{¶ 6} Salahuddin appealed the trial court's March 2019 judgment, and the trial court stayed execution of its judgment pending resolution of Salahuddin's appeal. In her first assignment of error, Salahuddin argued that the trial court erred by granting Wilmington's motion for summary judgment because there remained genuine issues of material fact as to whether Wilmington met all conditions precedent prior to initiating its foreclosure action. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc, FSB v. Salahuddin, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-190, 2020-Ohio-6934, ¶ 24 ("Salahuddin I "). In particular, Salahuddin argued that Wilmington did not demonstrate its compliance with the conditions precedent to foreclosure set out in 24 C.F.R. 203.602 and 203.604, regulations that apply to federally insured mortgages for single-family homes. Id. at ¶ 25.

{¶ 7} We sustained Salahuddin's first assignment of error in part, as it related to 24 C.F.R. 203.602, which requires a mortgagee to give notice of delinquency to each mortgagor in default "on a form supplied by the Secretary [of Housing and Urban Development] or, if the mortgagee wishes to use its own form, on a form approved by the Secretary." 24 C.F.R. 203.602. We held that Wilmington had not provided the trial court with evidence "to settle as a matter of law whether it or any of its predecessors in interest provided written notification of delinquency to Salahuddin in the manner required by 24 C.F.R. 203.602." Salahuddin I at ¶ 31. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the trial court "for further proceedings consistent with [our] decision regarding Wilmington's satisfaction of the requirements in 24 C.F.R. 203.602." Id. at ¶ 56. In all other respects, we affirmed the trial court's judgment.

{¶ 8} On remand, the trial court granted a motion to substitute Atlantica-appellee here-for Wilmington as the plaintiff, because the Note and Mortgage had been assigned to Atlantica. Atlantica thereafter filed a motion in limine, asking the trial court to limit the trial on remand to the issue of compliance with 24 C.F.R. 203.602. The trial court granted Atlantica's motion in limine and denied a motion for reconsideration filed by Salahuddin.

{¶ 9} The trial court referred the matter to a magistrate for a bench trial, which was held on October 27, 2022. Atlantica presented trial testimony from records custodians for JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase") and Land Home Financial Services, both of which serviced Salahuddin's loan at pertinent times, and submitted numerous exhibits that were admitted into evidence. Salahuddin testified on her own behalf and called the Chase record custodian. Both parties filed post-trial briefs with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

{¶ 10} On December 15, 2022, the magistrate issued a decision in which she concluded that Atlantica established by sufficient, credible evidence that Chase provided written notification of delinquency to Salahuddin in compliance with 24 C.F.R. 203.602 by a letter dated December 11, 2012. The magistrate therefore recommended that Atlantica was entitled to a judgment entry and foreclosure decree in its favor. The magistrate's decision included the following notification:

A PARTY SHALL NOT ASSIGN AS ERROR ON APPEAL THE TRIAL COURT'S ADOPTION OF ANY FACTUAL FINDING OR LEGAL CONCLUSION, WHETHER OR NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS A FINDING OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW UNDER CIV.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), UNLESS THE PARTY TIMELY AND SPECIFICALLY OBJECTS TO THAT FACTUAL FINDING OR LEGAL CONCLUSION AS REQUIRED BY CIV.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

(Dec. 15, 2022 Mag.'s Decision at 6.)

{¶ 11} Salahuddin did not file objections to the magistrate's decision under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), but on December 20, 2022, she filed a motion for a new trial, based on alleged "[m]isconduct" by Atlantica, "[inadequate damages given," and "[e]rrors of law occurring at trial." (Dec. 20, 2022 Mot. for a New Trial at 1.) As errors of law, she challenged the trial court's decision allowing Atlantica to submit a lengthy trial exhibit shortly before trial, alleged that the trial court allowed hearsay testimony by Atlantica's witnesses and improperly overruled Salahuddin's objections to that testimony, and claimed that Atlantica's trial exhibits included accounting errors. Id. Atlantica opposed Salahuddin's motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied on January 17, 2023.

{¶ 12} On January 12, 2023, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and again entered judgment on the Note and Mortgage, this time in favor of Atlantica.

{¶ 13} Salahuddin appeals the trial court's judgment and asserts five assignments of error.

1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE, BECAUSE APPELLANT'S LAND IS PATENTED BY UNITED STATES LAND PATENT.

2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE BECAUSE APPELLANT'S JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE WAS NEVER ADJUDICATED.

3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE, BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NOT LATE ON HER MORTGAGE AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE CASE.

4. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED APPELLEE'S MOTION IN LIMINE WHEN APPELLEE FAILED TO MEET ALL CONDITIONS PRECEDENT PRIOR TO INITIATING FORECLOSURE.

5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS STILL IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH APPELLEE WHEN THE PRETRIAL BEGAN.

(Appellant's Brief at ix-x.)

II. ANALYSIS

{¶ 14} For ease of discussion, we address Salahuddin's assignments of error out of order, beginning with her fourth assignment of error, which concerns the scope of the proceedings before the trial court on remand from this court.

A. Assignment of Error No. 4

{¶ 15} In her fourth assignment of error, Salahuddin contends that the trial court erred by...