Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • P
  • PHH Mortgage Corp. v. BarkerPHH Mortgage Corp. v. Barker
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Barker

Ohio Court of Appeals
940 N.E.2d 662 (2010)


Denise and Robert Barker (defendants) executed a note and mortgage on a home with First Financial Bank, N.A. (First Financial). Thereafter, the Barkers failed to make the required monthly payments for two consecutive months. After attempting to contact First Financial to rectify the issue, Denise was eventually referred to the “loss mitigation” office that would assist the Barkers in curing the default and bring the mortgage current. A month later, the Barkers received a loss-mitigation packet from the “Mortgage Service Center” with information to complete and return. After the Barkers returned the completed packet they received a letter from First Financial notifying them that their mortgage was in default. Around the same time however, the Barkers received a new “coupon book” from First Financial that listed a new monthly payment. Believing that their mortgage had been reinstated, the Barkers began making monthly mortgage payments using the new coupon book. Thereafter, First Financial sent two checks and letters to the Barkers informing them that their money was being returned because their mortgage remained in default and was pending foreclosure. The Barkers later testified at trial that they never received any check or letter and no evidence was presented that the checks were ever cashed. PHH Mortgage Corporation (PHH) (plaintiff) then filed a complaint in foreclosure against the Barkers. However, Denise continued to make monthly mortgage payments and First Financial continued to accept them for nearly six months until told to cease by PHH. PHH filed a motion for summary judgment which was later denied by the trial court. Before the trial court ruled on the motion, the Barkers filed for bankruptcy and continued to receive “loss mitigation” paperwork from First Financial, which they completed and returned. The trial court held for the Barkers, reinstated their mortgage and note, and PHH appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Shaw, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial