Menninger v. First Franklin Financial Corp. (In Re Fryman)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• failing to cite Hoover, but stating that [because] “[t]he witnessing of the mortgage has not been ehallenged[,][i]t would be inconsistent to ‘discredit’ the notary’s acknowledgment when the notary’s witnessing is accepted to have been proper”
• discussing Ohio case law on this issue and concluding that a certificate of acknowledgment which included the name of only one mortgagor but used the handwritten plural pronouns “they” and “their” for the balance of the acknowledgment substantially complied
• mortgage was executed in August of 1999 and “one of the witnesses was also the notary”
• “[T]he court must review the nature of the error and the balance of the document to determine whether or not the ‘instrument supplies within itself the means of making the correction.’ ” (quoting Dodd, 5 N.E. at 867)
• “The witnessing of the mortgage has not been challenged.”
• ORC § 5301.01 requires substantial compliance with Ohio law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).