Comments

Merit Decision: Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. A Field Day for Civil Procedure Geeks. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta — 6 Comments

  1. As to the second part of the Kuchta decision:

    Despite the language used by the court, it appears to me that it overlooked the constitutional threshold issue of whether the common pleas court had a justicable matter before it. It instead focused on the secondary issue of whether the trial court had statutory authority to hear this particular kind of case (foreclosure).

    The court should have started with whether there was a justicable matter between the parties. That is, whether there was an actual case or controversy because of the lack of a conflict between the plaintiff and defendant at the time of filing. This was what Schwartzwald seemed to demand. However, instead of reinforcing Schwartzwald, the court jumps down the line to whether the trial court could hear that kind of matter pursuant to statute. It suggests statutory authority for a trial court to hear a particular type of case trumps the constitutional mandate that a justiciable matter exists between the litigants. This is very troubling.

    You reference Botts, which is further muddled by the Finney case, also out of the 10th (our firm’s case). Finney expands the analysis regarding jurisdiction to essentially create a new “third kind” of jurisdiction in Ohio. Finney was accepted by the supreme court and held for a decision in Kuchta. It will be interesting to see what the court does with Finney now. As you note, the court was not clear on how cases should be analyzed moving forward for standing versus for justiciable matters raised under what we have traditionally known as subject matter jurisdiction.

    While I can appreciate the court’s holding about 60(b)(3), the jurisdiction portion is problematic. The court needs to be very careful about reinforcing any concept of three kinds of jurisdiction in Ohio, or the law of unintended consequences will certainly come into play. Read far enough, Kuchta could mean the end of any kind of meaningful argument about subject matter jurisdiction in any case (so long as the case is the kind that can be heard by the court).

    • Thanks Troy. The Supreme Court does seem to be mixing up lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of a justiciable controversy between the parties. In the classic sense, when the Bank filed suit without being owner or assignee of the paper, it had no suffered an injury, and thus failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. And that notion of a “third kind” of jurisdiction is lurking in the undertow. We’ll keep our eye on the Finney case.
      Professor Bettman

  2. I’m no legal expert (though I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night), but it seems to me that this decision represents a blatant attempt for the Court to ‘close the barn door’ that they correctly opened in Schwartzwald that properly recognized the well-established position that a ‘void judgment can be attacked at any time’.

    I hate to be so cynical, but it smells to the high-heavens of the bankster lobby getting in the ear of the right people and making the case that the sky will fall since more and more people are realizing that virtually all of the judgments in foreclosure cases are void if one peels even a few layers off of the onion.

    However, once the Courts start down the road of essentially creating public policy–especially one so blatantly directed to covering-up the crimes of big banks–we’re well on our way to a banana republic, if we’re not there already.

    It will be interesting to see what challenges arise from this ill-considered opinion in terms of violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution since justiciability is a bedrock legal principle of our entire judicial system, unless of course you’re in Ohio’s Courts of Common Pleas.

  3. It appears to me that the little guy is getting shafted. If you look at a note and it is not endorsed to or attachments to an asset backed security claimed by the trustee showing the chain of endorsements before summary judgment, then you have a judicial error fault of the court, and the judgment is void at any time, you just don’t let a bank say well we can over look it because we are a bank . I have a case in Oklahoma where there are no assignments, no chain of endorsements, note does not belong to Wells Fargo and none of this was ever changed until I took them to Bankruptcy court and they robo signed robo stamped a note to a totally different asset backed security with an assignment of mortgage 3 yrs post judgment and the proof is clear s writing on the wall, there only defense, Rooker Feldman doctrine, if you are an attorney and you would like a fraud case in Oklahoma call me 405-824-2981

  4. Thank you Professor Bettman. I am a former student (class of 2012) and was just doing research on this exact issue for a Brief—- this helped me out greatly! I always enjoy reading your blog and this is the second time I have read something that helped with one of my cases!