Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. RHIEL, Trustee.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 2018No. 2017-0870Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDeWine, J.

*565{¶ 26} Under the facts presented by the federal court, both certified questions can be answered unequivocally. When one party to a mortgage document conveys an interest in property, a second party who only signs and initials the mortgage does not mortgage her interest. And a mortgage by which a person conveys an interest is neither invalid nor unambiguous even if a second person signs and initials the document. Thus, parol evidence should not be considered. Because the majority answers the questions differently, I dissent.

{¶ 27} "Certification ensures that federal courts will properly apply…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Trinova Corp. v. Pilkington Bros., P.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Scott v. Bank One Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Rhiel v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Perry)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API