In re Consolidated Mortgage Satisfaction Cases
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.
{¶ 1} This case involves motions for class certification in 12 cases brought by appellants-mortgagors1 against their respective lenders. The mortgagors in each case allege that the lenders violated R.C. 5301.36, which requires a mortgagee to record the satisfaction of a residential mortgage with the appropriate county recorder within 90 days of the date of the satisfaction. R.C. 5301.36(B). Each mortgagor seeks recovery of $250 in damages as permitted by R.C. 5301.36(C).
{¶ 2} Ostensibly to deal with the high volume of separate claims on its docket invoking R.C.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Vasquez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Marks v. C.P. Chemical Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- Warner v. Waste Management, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Schmidt v. Avco Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In re Consol. Mtge. Satisfaction CasesOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- In re Welding Fume Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007
- Gilbert v. Fifth Third BancorpOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Shipp v. Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
- State v. PitroffOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.