Significant Cases

Decision: 59 Ohio App.3d60 (Hamilton County, 1988) - this case re-established the doctrine that Banks and their customers are not subject to RISA.

Decision: Trial court case no. CV-18-90339, appellate court case no. CA-19-108215(2019)-the trial court found in favor of the creditor on a default judgment. However, the trial court gave us the statutory interest rate of 5%, rather than 25% as required by law. Creditor appealed and filed its appellate brief. A few days before oral argument the Court ordered the lower court to correct the interest rate to 25%.

Decision: Case no. 19923010, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (2019-2020), creditor obtained a default judgment, but it was problematic. Judgment was rendered only for the principal balance at the statutory interest rate. Creditor filed for reconsideration of the judgment which was granted.

Decision: 2008 Ohio 1278 (Franklin County 2008)-this is an appeal of a lower court decision which awarded only the statutory interest rate on its judgment. In the appeal the Bank prevailed and received the proper interest rate.

Decision: 43 Ohio App.3d 64 (Franklin County, 1987) - this case established the principal that Banks and their customers are re not subject to The Retail Installment Sales Act ("RISA").

Decision: 97 B.R. 903 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989) - Objection to confirmation is sustained. The case held that co-signed claim must be paid at a higher rate that other unsecured claims and not at a lower rate.

Decision: 356 B.R. 674 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006)-debtor sued creditor arguing that creditor violated the automatic stay by repossessing the collateral post-filing. Creditor argued that the stay was terminated by operation of law and the debtor’s motion was denied.

Decision: 346 B.R. 767 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006)-objection to confirmation sustained allowing creditor to avoid cram down and requiring debtor to file a new plan.

Decision: 101 B.R. 505 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989)-This involved an objection to claim in a Chapter 13 case. There is an exception for co-signed loans and the basis of the objection is that it lowered the rights of the co-signor in a lower level and it had to be preferential The court held it was improper and sustained the objection.

Decision: 273 B.R. 141 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio, 2001) - Defendant obtained summary judgement because the subject mortgage was recorded and served as construction notice to the Plaintiff of the mortgage.

Decision: 2008 Ohio 6514 (Franklin County 2008)-this was an appeal of a summary judgment in the lower court wherein the Defendant was given the opportunity to further reply, but failed to do so and the appellate court indicated that there was a waiver and
found for the creditor.

Decision: 393 B.R. 561 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008)-after the creditors repossessed the collateral, the trustee and debtor filed suit against the creditor arguing violation of automatic stay seeking turnover and damages. Creditor prevailed on summary judgment as the stay had been terminated by operation of law.