HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v. Abbott ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v. Abbott, 
    2011-Ohio-3032
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    HSBC MORTGAGE SERVIES, INC.                                JUDGES:
    Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
    Plaintiff-Appellee                                 Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
    Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
    -vs-
    Case No. 10-CA-129
    CHARLES ABBOTT
    Defendant-Appellant                                OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                               Appeal from the Licking County Court of
    Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CV-725
    JUDGMENT:                                              Affirmed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                                June 20, 2011
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                                 For Defendant-Appellant
    JASON A. WHITACRE                                      BRIAN K. DUNCAN
    LAURA C. INFANTE                                       Duncan Simonette, Inc.
    KATHRYN M. EYSTER                                      580 South High Street, Suite 100
    The Law Offices of                                     Columubus, Ohio 43215
    John D. Clunk, Co., L.P.A.
    4500 Courthouse Blvd., Ste. 400
    Stow, Ohio 44224
    Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-129                                                     2
    Hoffman, J.
    {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Charles Abbott appeals the October 19, 2010
    Judgment Entry entered by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas denying his
    motion to vacate the entry of default judgment against him and in favor of Plaintiff-
    appellee HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    {¶2}   On August 25, 2005, Appellant executed an adjustable rate note in favor
    of Popular Financial Services, LLC, and a mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic
    Registration Systems, Inc. HSBC received an assignment of the note and mortgage,
    recorded May 7, 2010.
    {¶3}   On May 6, 2010, Appellee filed a complaint in foreclosure in the Licking
    County Court of Common Pleas against Appellant. Service was issued on all parties
    the same day. Appellant was personally served by private process server on May 10,
    2010. HSBC moved the trial court for default judgment on June 10, 2010.
    {¶4}   The trial court entered default judgment in favor of HSBC via Judgment
    Entry on June 21, 2010. On July 1, 2010, Bank of New York filed its Praecipe for Order
    of Sale with the Court. A Sheriff’s Sale of the property was to be held on November 5,
    2010.
    {¶5}   On September 17, 2010, Appellant filed a motion to vacate the default
    judgment, motion to stay execution, request for mediation and motion for leave to file an
    answer out of time, alleging his failure to file an answer was the result of excusable
    neglect.
    Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-129                                                    3
    {¶6}   On September 29, 2010, HSBC opposed the motion. On October 18,
    2010, the trial court conducted an oral hearing on Appellant’s motion. No transcript was
    made a part of the record in this appeal.
    {¶7}   Via Judgment Entry of October 19, 2010, the trial court denied Appellant’s
    motion to vacate the default judgment.
    {¶8}   Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
    {¶9}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE ITS JUNE
    21, 2010 JUDGMENT ENTRY BASED ON CIV.R. 60(B)(5) AND/OR CIV.R. 60(B)(1).”
    {¶10} Ohio Civil Rule 60(B) reads,
    {¶11} “(B) Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; newly discovered
    evidence; fraud; etc
    {¶12} “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party
    or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following
    reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
    evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a
    new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
    extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment
    has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based
    has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment
    should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the
    judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2)
    and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or
    Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-129                                                       4
    taken. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or
    suspend its operation.
    {¶13} “The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion
    as prescribed in these rules.”
    {¶14} The moving party must demonstrate he is entitled to relief on one of the
    grounds set forth in Civil Rule 60(B)(1) through (5), that he has a meritorious defense,
    and the motion is made within a reasonable time. GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Arc
    Industries, Inc. (1976), 
    47 Ohio St.2d 146
    . These requirements are independent and in
    conjunctive; thus, the test is not fulfilled if any one of the requirements is not met. 
    Id.
    Further, the movant must establish the above requirements by operative facts
    presented in a form that meets evidentiary standards such as affidavits, depositions,
    transcripts of evidence, written stipulations or other evidence given under oath. East
    Ohio Gas Co. v. Walker (1978), 
    59 Ohio App. 2d 216
    .
    {¶15} On appeal, the proper standard of review of a trial court’s decision on a
    Civil Rule 60(B) motion is abuse of discretion. Strack v. Pelton (1994), 
    70 Ohio St.3d 172
    ; Quebodeaux v. Quebodeaux (1995), 
    102 Ohio App.3d 502
    .
    {¶16} As set forth in the statement of the case, supra, Appellant has not
    provided this Court with a transcript of the proceedings before the trial court on October
    18, 2010, at which time the trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant’s motion to
    vacate. Ohio Appellate Rule 9 states,
    {¶17} “(B) The transcript of proceedings; duty of appellant to order; notice
    to appellee if partial transcript is ordered
    Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-129                                                        5
    {¶18} “At the time of filing the notice of appeal the appellant, in writing, shall
    order from the reporter a complete transcript or a transcript of the parts of the
    proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the
    record and file a copy of the order with the clerk. The reporter is the person appointed
    by the court to transcribe the proceedings for the trial court whether by stenographic,
    phonogramic, or photographic means, by the use of audio electronic recording devices,
    or by the use of video recording systems. If there is no officially appointed reporter,
    App.R. 9(C) or 9(D) may be utilized. If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a
    finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the weight of the
    evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to
    the findings or conclusion.”
    {¶19} Appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to matters in the
    record. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 
    61 Ohio St.2d 197
    ; State v. Prince
    (1991), 
    71 Ohio App.3d 694
    . An appellate court can reach its decision only upon facts
    which are adduced in the trial court’s proceeding and cannot base its decision on
    allegations founded upon facts from outside of the record. Merillat v. Fulton Cty. Bd. Of
    Commrs. (1991), 
    73 Ohio App.3d 459
    .
    {¶20} When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors
    are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as
    to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the
    lower court's proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp, supra.
    {¶21} Because Appellant has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the
    October 18, 2010 hearing, we presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings.
    Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-129                                           6
    {¶22} The October 19, 2010 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of
    Common Pleas is affirmed.
    By: Hoffman, J.
    Gwin, P.J. and
    Edwards, J. concur
    s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
    HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
    s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
    HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
    Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-129                                                 7
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    HSBC MORTGAGE SERVIES, INC.               :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                 :
    :
    -vs-                                      :         JUDGMENT ENTRY
    :
    CHARLES ABBOTT                            :
    :
    Defendant-Appellant                :         Case No. 10-CA-129
    For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Licking
    County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
    s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
    HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
    s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
    HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-CA-129

Judges: Hoffman

Filed Date: 6/20/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014