Citimortgage Inc

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Lucas, (Ohio 2011)

There being no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of CitiMortgage, Inc., on its complaint in foreclosure. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Kermeen, (Ohio 2012)

The trial court did not err in failing to grant default judgment in favor of Appellant solely because Appellees failed to appear or defend; Civ. R. 55 makes it discretionary with the trial court to decide if a hearing is necessary. De novo review of the trial court’s interpretation of the Mortgage at issue reveals that the Mortgage encompasses the entire fee simple interest in the property. Pursuant to Civ.R. 8(D), the averments in the complaint are deemed admitted. Reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter judgment consistent with this opinion.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Carpenter, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment in foreclosure in favor of plaintiff. A lender’s failure to conduct a proper evaluation of a borrower’s application for assistance under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, as required by United States Department of the Treasury Supplemental Directive 09-08 and Freddie Mac Bulletin 2009-28, is not an affirmative defense to a foreclosure action. Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Elia, (Ohio 2011)

summary judgment – mortgage – foreclosure – acceleration – default – notice – affidavit – personal knowledge

• Ohio Supreme Court

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Booth, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court was within its discretion to refuse attempt to intervene in foreclosure case.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Dudek, (Ohio 2012)

Civ.R. 60(B)(3), meritorious defense, misrepresentation, fraud, allegations of operative fact, evidentiary hearing, findings of fact, conclusions of law

• Ohio Supreme Court

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Bumphus, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court abused its discretion by granting default judgment against the heir of a deceased mortgagor when the heir had filed a letter with the court challenging the validity of the mortgage, which was sufficient to constitute an appearance in the action and warrant notice of the filing of a Civ.R. 55 motion for default judgment.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Citimortgage, Inc. v. Hoge, (Ohio 2011)

Appellant had a sufficient opportunity, 414 days, to respond to a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court did not err in ruling on the motion before a response was filed. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in the foreclosure action.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Stevens, (Ohio 2011)

summary judgment, R.C. 5311.18, Civ.R. 56

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Compel v. Citimortgage Inc, (4th Cir. 2005)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1462 DANIEL LEWIS COMPEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITIMORTGAGE,...

• Federal Circuits