Legal Opinion

In re Consolidated Mortgage Satisfaction Cases

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 2002No. 2001-1912PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Vasquez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Marks v. C.P. Chemical Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Warner v. Waste Management, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Schmidt v. Avco Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In re Consol. Mtge. Satisfaction CasesOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. In re Welding Fume Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007
  3. Gilbert v. Fifth Third BancorpOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Shipp v. Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. State v. PitroffOhio Court of Appeals · 2020

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API