Howard Hanna v. Ford

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 5524

Syllabus

Standing; jurisdiction; subject-matter jurisdiction; money damages; R.C. 1923.081; Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 2012-Ohio-5017; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 2014-Ohio-4275; defense; timely preserved; capacity to sue; real party in interest; Civ.R. 9(A); Civ.R. 17(A); Civ.R. 8(C). Judgment affirmed. We decline to adopt the defendant-appellant's broad conclusion that lack of standing always presents a nonwaivable-jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any point in a proceeding. Instead, we find that certain standing-related objections, especially those inconsequential to a trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, can be waived if they are not timely preserved. Here, the defendant-appellant's lack-of-standing argument does not present a nonwaivable-jurisdictional question; rather, the defendant-appellant challenges the plaintiff-appellee's capacity to sue and questions whether plaintiff-appellee is the real party in interest — both of which are waivable defenses. Defendant-appellant's answer did not include lack-of-capacity-to-sue or real-party-in-interest defenses. Nor did defendant-appellant seek to amend her answer to preserve those defenses. Therefore, defendant-appellant waived any lack-of-capacity or real-party-in-interest defenses and cannot subsequently raise them, even under the guise of standing.