Strickler v. First Ohio Banc & Lending, Inc.

Citation: 2016 Ohio 5876Docket: 15CA010893

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; September 19, 2016; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

First Ohio Banc. Lending, Inc. appeals a judgment from the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which the Court dismisses for lack of a final, appealable order. The case originated on July 27, 2007, when Lynn Strickler and Keith Krese filed a complaint against First Ohio Banc and its employees, alleging claims including breach of fiduciary duty, failure to provide necessary disclosures, violations of the Ohio Mortgage Broker Act and Consumer Sales Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement. 

After the complaint was filed, First Ohio Banc sought to stay proceedings pending arbitration, but the trial court denied this motion. First Ohio Banc's appeal of this denial was affirmed by the appellate court, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined jurisdiction over the matter. 

Subsequently, the parties requested the trial court to address substantive issues, leading to competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Borrowers, finding First Ohio Banc liable for violations of R.C. 1322.11, which necessitated damages to fulfill the statute's purpose. 

The Borrowers filed for class certification, which the trial court granted on January 13, 2012, defining the class as individuals who purchased mortgage-related services from First Ohio Banc from May 2, 2002, to the present. First Ohio Banc's appeal of the class certification was also affirmed, with the Supreme Court declining jurisdiction again.

On September 24, 2015, First Ohio Banc moved to decertify the class based on recent Supreme Court decisions, but the trial court denied this motion on November 19, 2015.

First Ohio Banc appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to decertify a class, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an 'injury caused by a violation' as required by R.C. 1322.11. The appeal raises jurisdictional questions, as the court must ensure it has the authority to hear the case based on final judgments according to Article IV, Section 3(B)(2) of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2505.02. The court notes that an order determining class action maintenance is considered final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(5). 

On January 27, 2016, the court questioned the finality of the order denying decertification, prompting the parties to submit memoranda. A provisional determination favoring jurisdiction was made on February 29, 2016, although the issue may be revisited later. The Borrowers filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which was denied. 

First Ohio Banc argues that recent Supreme Court decisions (Stammco and Felix) create new circumstances warranting a reassessment of class certification. It cites previous Sixth District rulings allowing appellate courts to revisit class certifications under similar conditions. In contrast, the Borrowers contend that the decertification motion was effectively a reconsideration of the original certification, asserting that the denial of this motion did not constitute a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(5).

The court distinguished the current case from prior cases, Ralston and Williams, emphasizing that those cases involved significant changes in factual circumstances following initial class certification. In Ralston, the denial of an appeal was based on the emergence of antagonistic interests among class members, while in Williams, class certification was conditional pending discovery, which later revealed a failure to preserve key evidence. The court noted that First Ohio Banc's reliance on recent case law as new circumstances was not applicable, as Ralston and Williams involved dramatic shifts in factual situations post-certification.

Additionally, the court reiterated that R.C. 2505.02(B)(5) allows for appeal only of the initial class certification order, not subsequent motions regarding decertification or class member composition. This principle upholds judicial economy in prolonged class action litigation, preventing endless interlocutory appeals. The court found that the November 19, 2015 order denying First Ohio Banc’s motion to decertify the class was not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(5), leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court's judgment constitutes the final entry and includes instructions for the filing and notification of the judgment. Costs were taxed to the Appellant.