My immediate previous post relating to the Duvall case, while factually accurate seems to have misstated what is actually happening within this case.
The appellant, U.S. Bank seems to have employed two approachs in seeking to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 8th District in Duvall.
First, U.S. Bank filed a motion within the Court of Appeals on January 10, 2011, seeking certification of a conflict between the decision in Duvall and several other cases where standing and/or real party in interest was decided in different ways.
Next, U.S. Bank filed a traditional notice of appeal seeking a discretionary review of the Duvall decision on January 28, 2011.
The Court of appeals GRANTED the motion for certification of a conflict on January 31, 2011. This entitled a consideration of the identified conflict by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court announced two separate decisions relating to Duvall on Wednesday, April 6, 2011. In respect of the U.S. Bank notice of appeal and filing seeking a discretionary review, the Court dismissed the appeal in Case No. 2011-0171. Interestingly, FOUR Supreme Court Justices dissented from the dismissal!
But also on Wednesday, the Supreme Court DID certify the conflict previously identified by the Court of Appeals on the U.S. Bank motion in Case No. 2011-0218:
The net effect of these two decisions is that the Ohio Supreme Court is going to hear and determine this certified question in respect of the U.S. Bank v. Duvall decision:
“To have standing as a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the note and the mortgage when the complaint was filed?”
This will be the most important foreclosure case decided in Ohio this year and the decision may have national significance! While not binding on other states, the decision will affect the contours of the debate!