Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Friday, December 17, 2010 8:39:25 Al
CASE NUMBER: 2010 CV 07441 Docket ID: 15714029
GREGORY A BRUS|
CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO
F10-03218 PLM/ned October 22, 2010
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
Chase Home Finance LLC CASE NO. 2010CV07441
Plaintiff
Judge MICHAEL T. HALL
-vs-
Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L AFFIDAVIT FOR SERVICE
Hiles, et al. BY PUBLICATION AT THE
DAILY COURT REPORTER
Defendant
THE STATE OF OHIO
ss
SUMMIT COUNTY
Peter L. Mehler, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
that he is the attorney for Chase Home Finance LLC in the above
entitled action for foreclosure, money relief and judgment, that
service of summons cannot be made upon the defendants, Rebecca
Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles whose last place of residence is 5274
Coco Drive, Unit 7A, Dayton, Ohio 45424, John Doe, Unknown
Spouse if any, of Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles whose last
place of residence is 5274 Coco Drive, Unit 7A, Dayton, Ohio
43424, Country View Estates Condominium Number Ones whose last
place of business is c/o John A. Dooley, Statutory Agent
5474 Coleraine Drive, Huber Heights, OH 45424.
That the present address of said defendants is unknown and
cannot with reasonable diligence be ascertained; That the
following efforts were made to ascertain the address of the
defendants:
Search of Court Documents, Telephone Directories, and
Certified and Residence Mail Service returned.
That this case is one of those mentioned in Section 2703.14
of the Revised Code of Ohio.
Peter L. Mehler, #0075283
SWORN TO BEFORE ME, and subscribed in my presence this
ardeay of ¢ Chek yest, 2010.
oy
$2 01) Roa
uy, Stary Public for the State of Ohio
si Oy,
“e% ALM. Beavers
% Resident Trumbull Cof
$ Notary Public, Stato 44ar2013
«Ee
My Gommission Expires!
a
es oe
"Mekinagn™
LEGAL NOTICE
Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles whose last place of residence
is 5274 Coco Drive, Unit 7A, Dayton, Ohio 45424, John Doe,
Unknown Spouse if any, of Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles
whose last place of residence is 5274 Coco Drive, Unit 7A,
Dayton, Chio 45424, Country View Estates Condominium Number Ones
whose last place of business is c/o John A. Dooley, Statutory
Agent, 5474 Coleraine Drive, Huber Heights, OH 45424 but whose
present place of business is unknown will take notice that on
September 17, 2010 @ 11:24 am, Chase Home Finance LLC filed its
Complaint in Case No. 2010CV07441 in the Court of Common Pleas
Montgomery County, Chio alleging that the Defendants Rebecca
Hiles aka Rebecca L.. Hiles, John Doe, Unknown Spouse if any, of
Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles, Country View Estates
Condominium Number Ones have or claim to have an interest in the
real estate described below:
Permanent Parcel Number: PIO 50424 0003; Property Address: 5274
Coco Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45424. The legal description may be
obtained from the Montgomery County Auditor at 451 West Third
Street, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45422. 937-225-4326.
The Petitioner further alleges that by reason of default of
the Defendants in the payment of a promissory note, according to
its tenor, the conditions of a concurrent mortgage deed given to
secure the payment of said note and conveying the premises
described, have been broken, and the same has become absolute.
The Petitioner prays that the Defendants named above be
required to answer and set up their interest in said real estate
or be forever barred from asserting the same, for foreclosure of
said mortgage, the marshalling of any liens, and the sale of
said real estate, and the proceeds of said sale applied to the
payment of Petitioner's Claim in the proper order of its
priority, and for such other and further relief as is just and
equitable.
THE DEFENDANTS NAMED ABO’ ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER ON OR BEFORE
THE DAY OF - , 2010.
BY: REIMER, /.
ARNOVITZ ’ CHERNEK & JEFFREY
Ce
Co., L.P.A.
Peter L. Mehler, Attorney at Law
Attorney for Piaintiff-Petitioner
P.O. Box 968
Twinsburg, OH 44087
(330) 425-4201
INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEWSPAPER USE ONLY (DO NOT PRINT): We
understand that you will, after the last date of publication,
prepare and file with the Clerk of Courts, an affidavit for such
service by publication. Please forward to us a copy of the
FIRST legal notice of service by publication in the above-
captioned matter for our records.
Please send a copy of the ad te our office before the first run
date so that we may proof it for any errors. The legal notice
can be sent to us via e-mail at ndufek@reimerlaw.com or via fax
at 330-405-1173. Thank You.
Related Content
in Montgomery County
Ruling
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC vs Karla V. Fonseca
Jul 15, 2024 |
STK-CV-URP-2022-0010735
2022-10735 Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC MSJ 7/16/2024 Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC brings this Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the moving documents, and no opposition having been filed, the Court issues the following tentative ruling: No opposition filed. As more fully set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted. SUMMARY JUDGMENT LEGAL STANDARD A motion for summary judgment will be granted when there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to establish the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if this burden is met the opposing party must then establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar, at p. 850.) “To be ‘material’ for summary judgment purposes, the fact must relate to some claim or defense in issue under the pleadings. Also, it must be in some way essential to the judgment - i.e., if proved, it could change the outcome of the motion.” (Kelly v. First Astri Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 462, 470.) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF LEGAL STANDARDS Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1060 et seq., a party interested in a deed or deed of trust may file an action requesting declaratory relief. The action is for a declaration of rights or duties with respect to another person or the property covered by the written instrument. “To qualify for declaratory relief, [a party] would have to demonstrate its action presented two essential elements: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to [the party's] rights or obligations.” (Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 872, 909 [citing Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1582] [quotation marks omitted].) ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION Here, Plaintiff brings the motion regarding an alleged error in the legal description included in a deed of trust perfected against real property commonly known as 13668 Autumnwood Ave., Lathrop, CA 95330 (“Property”). The dispute regarding the parties’ rights or obligations on the validity of the deed of trust, which includes the incorrect tract name “STRONGBRIDGE” rather than the correct description “STONEBRIDGE,” is an actual controversy that the court may resolve. (P’s MPA p. 7 lns. 12-14.) The undisputed facts and documentary evidence show that in November 2018, Defendant executed a grant deed, along with a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, to purchase the Property. (P’s SSUMF # 2-4; RJN # 1-3.) The grant deed and deed of trust both contain the same error in the legal description as “STRONGBRIDGE” rather than “STONEBRIDGE.” (P’s RJN # 1, 2.) The correct legal description of the tract name as “STONEBRIDGE” is reflected in Tract Map # 2758, dated June 1997. (P’s RJN # 4.) On these grounds, Plaintiff met its burden that no triable issues of material fact exist, and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: REFORMATION OF DEED OF TRUST LEGAL STANDARDS A written instrument regarding real property may be reformed when, through fraud or mistake, it does not truly express the intent of the parties. The grounds for the reformation can be fraud, mutual mistake, or the mistake of one party which the other party knew or suspected at the time the deed was executed. (Civ. Code, §§ 3399-3402.) The mistake may not be one resulting from the inexcusable negligence or neglect of a legal duty on the part of the party seeking reformation. (Civ. Code, § 1577.) Reformation is not available unless there was an understanding between the parties on all essential terms. The party seeking reformation must prove the true intent of the agreement by clear and convincing evidence. (Shupe v. Nelson (1967) 254 Cal App 2d 693 (allowing reformation of deed).) A complaint for reformation must allege the real agreement, the agreement reduced to writing, and the mistake; that is, the defect in the writing and generally how it came about. (Landis v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 232 Cal App 2d 548.) Courts may reform the written instrument when sufficient evidence is presented of a scrivener’s error in the legal description of the deed or deed of trust. (Civ. Code § 3399; Cal. Pacific Title Co., Sacramento Div. v. Moore (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 114, 116; Merkle v. Merkle (1927) 85 Cal.App. 87, 105.) ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION Here, Plaintiff brings the motion regarding an alleged error in the legal description attached to a deed of trust perfected against the Property. The undisputed facts and documentary evidence show that in November 2018, Defendant executed a grant deed, along with a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, to purchase the Property. (P’s SSUMF # 2-4; RJN # 1-3.) The grant deed and deed of trust both contain the same error in the legal description, calling the tract “STRONGBRIDGE” rather than “STONEBRIDGE.” (P’s RJN # 1, 2.) The correct legal description of the tract is “STONEBRIDGE” as reflected in Tract Map # 2758, dated June 1997. (P’s RJN # 4.) Further, the undisputed documentary evidence shows that Defendant and the original lender intended to encumber the Property by including the property address and Assessor’s Parcel Number in the grant deed and deed of trust, and through mutual mistake the legal description contains an error. (P’s RJN # 2-3.) On these grounds, Plaintiff met its burden that no triable issues of material fact exist, and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. CONCLUSION Since Plaintiff has met its burden as to all causes of action, and Defendant failed to oppose the motion, the motion for summary judgment is granted. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. WATERS 7/15/2024 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To conduct a remote appearance, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility
Ruling
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY vs. JEANNIE GREGORI
Jul 10, 2024 |
C23-02391
C23-02391
CASE NAME: OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY VS. JEANNIE GREGORI
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO: FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF JEANNIE M. GREGORI
FILED BY: GREGORI, GILBERT J.
*TENTATIVE RULING:*
Vacated, the cross-complaint was dismissed on June 26, 2024.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 27
JUDICIAL OFFICER: TERRI MOCKLER
HEARING DATE: 07/10/2024
Ruling
JAVIER ORTEGON VS CAROLINA CORTAZAR, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 |
21NWCV00227
Case Number:
21NWCV00227
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2024
Dept:
C
Ortegon vs. Cortazar, et al.
CASE NO.: 21NWCV00227
HEARING: July 19, 2024 @ 9:30 AM
#2
Tentative Ruling
1.
Plaintiffs Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Defendant Carolina Cortazar is GRANTED.
The Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions and the Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) are MOOT.
2.
Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) as to Defendants Steven Mitchell and Carlos Sandoval are GRANTED.
Sanctions are imposed upon Defendant Steven Mitchell and Carlos Sandoval, and counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount $1050.00, payable within 60 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Background
This is a landlord-tenant dispute between Plaintiff Javier Ortegon (Plaintiff) and Defendants Carolina Cortazar, Steven Mitchell, and Carlos Sandoval (collectively Defendants). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully entered the leased property on several occasions, threatened Plaintiff, removed Plaintiffs personal property, and wrongfully evicted Plaintiff.
Plaintiff moves to compel response to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, as to each Defendant.
As to Defendant Carolina Cortazar only, Plaintiff also moves for an order for terminating, issue, and monetary sanctions on the grounds that Defendant Cortazar has been misusing the discovery process.
The motions are unopposed as of July 12, 2024.
Motion for Terminating Sanctions
If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2025.450, subd. (h); § 2030.290, subd. (c); § 2031.300, subd. (c).) "To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method ... the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose ... monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating) sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process... " (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2030.030.) "Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: ... (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery... (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery .... " (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2030.010.)
Plaintiffs motion for terminating sanctions is based upon Defendant Cortazars failure to comply with this Courts March 24, 2022, order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs Demand for Inspection of Premises, Set One; February 21, 2023 order compelling Defendant to respond without objections to Plaintiffs Demand for Inspection of Tangible Things, Set One; December 12, 2023, order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs Demand for Production of Documents, Set One; March 6, 2024, order compelling Defendant comply with Plaintiffs Inspection of Premises, Set One; and the issuance of monetary sanctions. (DAmico Decl., ¶¶2-10.)
1)
Terminating Sanctions
Generally, [a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. (
Los Defensores v. Gomez
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390.)
Here, it appears that Defendant previously served responses to Demand for Inspection of Tangible Things, Set One on October 25, 2022. (See March 6, 2024 Minute Order.) However, those responses were not supported by competent evidence because they lacked foundation; further, they contained objections. (
Id
.)
Defendants counsel also stated that he communicated to Plaintiffs counsel that he believed the premises could not be inspected because a new tenant was leasing it. (
Id
.)
However, that communication was unresponsive to Plaintiffs discovery. (
Id
.)
As to the Request for Production of Documents, the Amended Responses that Defendants counsel did serve do not comply with the Courts December 12, 2023 Order. (DAmico Dec. ¶ 7.) Moreover, Defendant has continued to fail to provide the premises for inspection. (DAmico Dec. ¶ 8, Ex. 4). Plaintiffs counsel engaged in several email communications and a 37-minute telephone conversation with Defendants counsel on March 26, 2024 regarding Defendants non-compliance, but Defendant has still failed to comply as of April 4, 2024, the date the instant motion was filed.
This Court already imposed monetary sanctions against Defendant Cortazar for failure to comply with discovery orders.
Moreover, Defendant was served with notice of the instant motion and did not file an opposition.
The Court denied Plaintiffs previous motion for terminating sanctions on March 6, 2024, finding that Defendant Cortazar had participated in discovery proceedings brought before the Court.
By now, however, it is clear that Defendant Cortazar is disinterested in litigating this case.
Accordingly, the Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Defendant Cortazar is GRANTED.
The Court strikes
Defendant Cortazars Answer, and default judgment against Defendant Cortazar is entered.
Motions to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set Two
A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).)
If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
The party who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion to compel and the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production of documents or interrogatories, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff served his second set of form interrogatories upon each Defendant individually.
(DAmico Dec. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) As of the dates the motions were filed (February 20, 2024 and February 21, 2024), Plaintiff Javier Ortegon has received no response to these interrogatories. (DAmico Dec. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, are GRANTED as to Defendants Steven Mitchell and Carlos Sandoval.
Plaintiff submits three requests for sanctions, each in the amount of $2,524.37 (4.5 hours for the preparation of each motion, including an additional 2.5 hours anticipated for reviewing and replying to any opposition and appearing at the hearing of each motion at $350.00 per hour, plus $74.37 for costs of filing this motion).
The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.
Sanctions are imposed upon Defendants Steven Mitchell and Carlos Sandoval, and counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount $1050.00, payable within 60 days.
The Court finds that the fees requested by counsel are excessinve. The motions are substantially similar to each other, and they are relatively simple. Lastly, the motions are unopposed.
Ruling
MARY ANN T. GO VS. DAVID P. CARAVANTES ET AL
Jul 17, 2024 |
CGC22603711
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 17, 2024 line 4. DEFENDANT DAVID CARAVANTES Motion For Interlocutory Judgmnt Of Partition is GRANTED.. Having reviewed the proposed interlocutory judgments, the Court will not accept either side's draft and will issue a modified interlocutory judgement. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
Pierce, Colleen et al vs. Roman, Renee et al
Jul 29, 2024 |
S-CV-0052476
S-CV-0052476 Pierce, Colleen et al vs. Roman, Renee et al
No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/21/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6.
Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to
Defendant(s): Roman, Renee
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Roman,
Renee
Ruling
LATTA, ERNEST, JR vs WYNNE, SHARON a)
Jul 17, 2024 |
CV-20-004851
CV-20-004851 – LATTA, ERNEST, JR vs WYNNE, SHARON – a) Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions - GRANTED, unopposed; b) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sharon Wynne’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set Two, Admitted – GRANTED, unopposed.
a) GRANTED, unopposed.
The Court finds that Plaintiff over two years later, has willfully failed to comply with the Court’s order of February 24, 2022, requiring Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production within twenty (20) days of said order, or be liable to have his complaint dismissed, and with the Court’s order of November 17, 2021, compelling responses to said Requests for Production. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004), 117 Cal.App.4th 913)
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiff’s complaint dated November 20, 2020, is hereby dismissed. (Code of Civil Proc, §2023.010, §2023.030; Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell ((2017) 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 727, rehearing denied, review denied; Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007), 149 Cal.App.4th 285; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605; Jerry's Shell v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 1058).
b) GRANTED, unopposed.
The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set Two, propounded on Plaintiff on May 23, 2022, without substantial justification.
Defendant’s motion is hereby granted.
Accordingly, all objections to said discovery by Plaintiff are waived. (Code of Civil Procedure §.2033.280(a). Furthermore, Request for Admissions Numbers 1-6 in Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set Two, are hereby deemed admitted by Plaintiff for all purposes including trial. (Civ Proc. Code §§.2033.010, 2033.020, 2033.250, 2033.280; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762).
Monetary sanctions of $310 are hereby imposed against Plaintiff.
Ruling
Tinsley VS Glaude
Jul 18, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) |
RG17874853
RG17874853: Tinsley VS Glaude
07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Deutsche Bank in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Jenna Whitman
The hearing on the motion for summary judgment scheduled for 07/18/2024 is continued to
09/05/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.
Ruling
WAGNER VS. LLOYD
Jul 18, 2024 |
CVCV21-0198602
WAGNER VS. LLOYD
Case Number: CVCV21-0198602
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of counsel. At the last hearing on May 20, 2024, both
parties represented that they were trying to obtain counsel. There was also a question of whether Plaintiff was
acting in her capacity as a Trustee. An appearance by both parties is required on today’s calendar. Plaintiff
should be prepared to address whether the property is held by a trust or as individuals.
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Friday, December 17, 2010 8:39:25 Al CASE NUMBER: 2010 CV 07441 Docket ID: 15714029 GREGORY A BRUS| CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO F10-03218 PLM/ned October 22, 2010 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO Chase Home Finance LLC CASE NO. 2010CV07441 Plaintiff Judge MICHAEL T. HALL -vs- Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L AFFIDAVIT FOR SERVICE Hiles, et al. BY PUBLICATION AT THE DAILY COURT REPORTER Defendant THE STATE OF OHIO ss SUMMIT COUNTY Peter L. Mehler, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the attorney for Chase Home Finance LLC in the above entitled action for foreclosure, money relief and judgment, that service of summons cannot be made upon the defendants, Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles whose last place of residence is 5274 Coco Drive, Unit 7A, Dayton, Ohio 45424, John Doe, Unknown Spouse if any, of Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles whose last place of residence is 5274 Coco Drive, Unit 7A, Dayton, Ohio 43424, Country View Estates Condominium Number Ones whose last place of business is c/o John A. Dooley, Statutory Agent 5474 Coleraine Drive, Huber Heights, OH 45424. That the present address of said defendants is unknown and cannot with reasonable diligence be ascertained; That the following efforts were made to ascertain the address of the defendants: Search of Court Documents, Telephone Directories, and Certified and Residence Mail Service returned. That this case is one of those mentioned in Section 2703.14 of the Revised Code of Ohio. Peter L. Mehler, #0075283 SWORN TO BEFORE ME, and subscribed in my presence this ardeay of ¢ Chek yest, 2010. oy $2 01) Roa uy, Stary Public for the State of Ohio si Oy, “e% ALM. Beavers % Resident Trumbull Cof $ Notary Public, Stato 44ar2013 «Ee My Gommission Expires! a es oe "Mekinagn™ LEGAL NOTICE Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles whose last place of residence is 5274 Coco Drive, Unit 7A, Dayton, Ohio 45424, John Doe, Unknown Spouse if any, of Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles whose last place of residence is 5274 Coco Drive, Unit 7A, Dayton, Chio 45424, Country View Estates Condominium Number Ones whose last place of business is c/o John A. Dooley, Statutory Agent, 5474 Coleraine Drive, Huber Heights, OH 45424 but whose present place of business is unknown will take notice that on September 17, 2010 @ 11:24 am, Chase Home Finance LLC filed its Complaint in Case No. 2010CV07441 in the Court of Common Pleas Montgomery County, Chio alleging that the Defendants Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L.. Hiles, John Doe, Unknown Spouse if any, of Rebecca Hiles aka Rebecca L. Hiles, Country View Estates Condominium Number Ones have or claim to have an interest in the real estate described below: Permanent Parcel Number: PIO 50424 0003; Property Address: 5274 Coco Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45424. The legal description may be obtained from the Montgomery County Auditor at 451 West Third Street, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45422. 937-225-4326. The Petitioner further alleges that by reason of default of the Defendants in the payment of a promissory note, according to its tenor, the conditions of a concurrent mortgage deed given to secure the payment of said note and conveying the premises described, have been broken, and the same has become absolute. The Petitioner prays that the Defendants named above be required to answer and set up their interest in said real estate or be forever barred from asserting the same, for foreclosure of said mortgage, the marshalling of any liens, and the sale of said real estate, and the proceeds of said sale applied to the payment of Petitioner's Claim in the proper order of its priority, and for such other and further relief as is just and equitable. THE DEFENDANTS NAMED ABO’ ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER ON OR BEFORE THE DAY OF - , 2010. BY: REIMER, /. ARNOVITZ ’ CHERNEK & JEFFREY Ce Co., L.P.A. Peter L. Mehler, Attorney at Law Attorney for Piaintiff-Petitioner P.O. Box 968 Twinsburg, OH 44087 (330) 425-4201 INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEWSPAPER USE ONLY (DO NOT PRINT): We understand that you will, after the last date of publication, prepare and file with the Clerk of Courts, an affidavit for such service by publication. Please forward to us a copy of the FIRST legal notice of service by publication in the above- captioned matter for our records. Please send a copy of the ad te our office before the first run date so that we may proof it for any errors. The legal notice can be sent to us via e-mail at ndufek@reimerlaw.com or via fax at 330-405-1173. Thank You.