Atlantica, L.L.C. v. Salahuddin

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 5780

Syllabus

The trial court did not err by entering judgment on a promissory note and mortgage in favor of plaintiff on remand from this court. This court previously remanded this matter to the trial court with instructions to determine whether plaintiff or any of its predecessors in interest satisfied the requirements of 24 C.F.R. 203.602 by providing written appropriate notice of delinquency to defendant prior to commencing this foreclosure action. Consistently with this court's mandate, the trial court properly limited the trial on remand to that question. Plaintiff did not file objections to the magistrate's decision, which determined that plaintiff had satisfied 24 C.F.R. 203.602, and she did not argue on appeal that the trial court committed plain error in adopting the magistrate's decision. Plaintiff's argument that she was not in default on the promissory note when the foreclosure case against her was commenced is barred by the law of the case. Finally, plaintiff's argument that the subject premises is patented by United States land patent, which she did not raise in the trial court until after she filed her notice of appeal, is waived because she did not raise it as an affirmative defense in her answer.