# Bank of America, N.A. v. Miller

> Ohio Court of Appeals · March 25, 2011 · 194 Ohio App. 3d 307

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802247

## Case

- **Full name:** BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee, v. MILLER Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 25, 2011
- **Citations:** 194 Ohio App. 3d 307; 956 N.E.2d 319; 2011 Ohio 1403
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hall
- **Judges:** Fain, Grady, Hall
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802247

## Opinion text

Hall, Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 60} I concur in judgment because the imprecise documentation provided by the plaintiff, coupled with that part of defendant’s affidavit that is admissible, raises a genuine issue of fact on the singular issue whether plaintiff is the current holder of the note. Although the assignments of error are interrelated, I don’t *319 believe that the defendants have satisfied their reciprocal burden to provide admissible evidence with regard to other issues.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802247. Public record. Not legal advice.