Blake v. Home Savings & Financing, 2010 Ohio 2689 (Ohio Application. 6/3/2010)

Blake is attractive the brand new conclusion judgment decision of your own Columbiana Condition Judge out of Common Pleas out of Blake’s action facing Household Coupons & Financing Co

< 1> This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties ‘ briefs. Pro-se Appellant , Veronica A. , and New England Square Condominium Association , and Home Savings’ counterclaim against Blake and third party defendants Richard E. Whitley , Heritage Title Agency, Inc. , and Columbiana County Treasurer .

< 2> Blake’s claims against all parties , as well as her defenses against Home Savings’ counterclaim, were predicated on her allegation that she did not have valid title to her condominium property. On appeal, Blake argues that the trial court erred in finding that her property was not originally and irrevocably dedicated to public use by the original developer, Sitler Construction, Inc. Blake also argues that the trial court erroneously found that Blake owned her property in fee simple, because there was an encumbrance on her property. Finally, Blake argues that the trial court should not have granted Home Savings’ foreclosure via summary judgment, because Blake presented an issue of material fact regarding the validity of her title to the property, and therefore regarding the validity of the mortgage.

The newest demonstration courtroom is the reason decision refuted Blake’s activity getting summary judgment , granted Appellee Home Savings’ actions to have summation judgment , overlooked Blake’s issue, receive Blake and you will Whitley inside default on the promissory notice, and you can ordered a foreclosure with the Blake’s mortgage

< 3> The partial documentation of plats and declarations provided by Blake in the proceedings below do not indicate that her property or the lot on which it is located was ever dedicated by Sitler for public use. The parking area for other condominium units, which allegedly constitutes an encumbrance on Blake’s property, is not part of Blake’s property. Blake did not present any evidence that undermined the validity of her title to the mortgaged property, or the validity of her mortgage agreement with Home Savings. Thus there did not remain any genuine issue of material fact regarding Blake’s obligation on her mortgage, and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Home Savings and dismissing Blake’s claims. Accordingly, the trial court ‘s decision is affirmed.

< 4> On , Blake filed a „Default/Foreclosure Special Defenses” against Home Savings and New England Square Condominium Association Board Officers. Blake stated that her filing was in response to a default notice sent by Home Savings. On a case designation form, Blake indicated „foreclosure” and „breach of contract.” The trial court accepted Blake’s filing and considered it to be a complaint. Blake asked that the trial court declare her mortgage contract with Home Savings to be void, and order Home Savings to refund all costs incurred in Blake’s purchase and mortgage of the property. Blake also asked that the Condominium Board be ordered to compensate Blake for maintenance fees and insurance costs due to faulty repairs.

< 5> Blake claims that her title to the condominium and her mortgage agreement are void because her condominium was built above a carport which provided parking for other condominium units, which means that her property actually belongs to the other units. Blake alternatively claims that the documentation required for the construction and initial conveyance of her condominium contained legally insufficient or contradictory descriptions, and concludes that the documentation problems prevented the property from being legally considered a condominium, rendering her title unmarketable. The complaint further claims that the original description of the development did not include Blake’s condominium, and that her condominium was constructed without obtaining a certificate of occupancy, and seems to conclude that Home Savings could not collect mortgage payments payday loans online Indiana as a result.