The Ohio Court of Appeals for Montgomery County handed down a decision today that is instructive primarily in demonstrating how not to litigate a foreclosure defense. The decision also exemplifies outcomes when borrowers in denial continue to seek to re-litigate (often encouraged by various scam artists) after a matter is finally decided and all appeals are final. The case is:
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP v. Busby, No. 25510, 2013-Ohio-1919 (Ohio App. May 10, 2013)
In this case, the Busbys allowed the plaintiff to obtain a default judgment against them. Later, they filed a motion to vacate under Rule 60, but then failed to show up for the hearing where their motion was considered. Much later, they prepared and filed a second Rule 60 motion, urging the same arguments that had been presented in the original motion they abandoned. In the interim, the time to file a Rule 60 motion based upon fraud had passed.
There are a handful of cases where a plaintiff's case can be demonstrated to require dismissal using the plaintiff's evidence. This is not one of these. By failing to run discovery and allowing a default judgment to be taken, the Busbys had already eviscerated their chances. Getting a default judgment reversed by Rule 60 motion is very difficult, even under the best circumstances. Failing to show up for their own hearing made that an impossibility.
The Busby's more recent renewed interest is characteristic of borrowers who have been re-energized by scam artists. Very often, the scam artists sell defeated borrowers some compilation of various mortgage fraud horror stories and promise the distressed borrowers that they can get their house back by paying the swindlers thousands of dollars for various specious reports, pleadings, and documents. The pleadings are almost never useful and the other documents are almost never admissible. The only winner in these cases is the scam artists who are ripping off distressed borrowers for millions every week by raising false hopes amongst the gullible and delusional.
This is not to say that a borrower cannot sometimes prevail on a Rule 60 motion or on appeal. But after a borrower lets a plaintiff obtain a default judgment, getting a reversal by Rule 60 motion or appeal is easily one hundred times harder. Filing a Rule 60 motion and then abandoning it makes success an impossibility.
This case is not about persistence and perseverance. It is about denial and probably involves the borrower being energized and then defrauded using the pretext that the robo-signing scandal could help a borrower recover in such an impossible case.