Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta (Slip Opinion)

{¶ 1} In this appeal, we are asked to resolve a conflict regarding a party’s ability to collaterally attack a judgment in a foreclosure action by asserting the issue of standing in a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal from the judgment in foreclosure on the issue of *76standing. We therefore reverse the decision of the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

Relevant Background

{¶ 2} On December 19, 2002, defendants-appellees, George and Bridget Kuchta (“the Kuchtas”),…