A Hamilton County man is entitled to a $250 payment from his mortgage lender for the company’s failure to report within 90 days that the mortgage had been paid off, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today. However, a class-action lawsuit by others experiencing the same issue during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot proceed.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed part of a First District Court of Appeals decision allowing Samuel Voss to collect the penalty from Quicken Loans, but reversed the First District’s ruling that a class-action lawsuit against the lender could proceed.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins noted Quicken’s late filing of mortgage release notices occurred in 2020 when county offices were closed because of COVID-19. State lawmakers revised R.C. 5301.36 in 2023 to prevent the collection of the $250 fine through class-action lawsuits only for late filings in 2020. Justice Hawkins wrote that because the law does not restrict lawsuits against lenders for late filings, but only prohibits class-action lawsuits, it does not violate the Ohio Constitution.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins’ opinion.

Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Jill Flagg Lanzinger, sitting for Justice Joseph T. Deters, agreed that Voss should be paid, but maintained the First District correctly found that the class-action lawsuit could proceed.

Lender Challenged Buyer’s Right to Payment
In 2020, Voss purchased a home from a seller who had obtained a loan from Quicken. The proceeds of the sale allowed the mortgage to be paid off at the time of the sale. The payment triggered a requirement under R.C. 5301.36(B) for Quicken and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to “record a release of the mortgage evidencing the fact of its satisfaction.” The law required the recording to take place within 90 days of the mortgage being paid off.

The deadline for Quicken to record the release was May 5, 2020, but Quicken did not record it until May 27. Under the law, the borrower or the owner of real property can file a lawsuit and seek $250 in damages if the release is not recorded within 90 days.

Voss initiated a class-action lawsuit in  Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in August 2020 on behalf of himself and all others whose release notices were not recorded on time by Quicken. The case was delayed by a number of procedural motions. While the issue of whether to certify the class was pending, state lawmakers amended R.C. 5301.36, adding a provision that prevents seeking $250 in damages via a class-action lawsuit for mortgage-release violations that occurred in 2020.

The new provision took effect in April 2023. Quicken asked the trial court for summary judgment, arguing Voss did not have standing to seek the damages because he could not prove he was actually harmed by the 22-day delay in the reporting of the mortgage being paid off. The lender also cited the new law and asked that the court prevent the class-action suit.

The trial court ruled in February 2023, two months before the law took effect, that Voss could pursue $250 in damages and the class-action suit could move forward. Quicken appealed to the First District, which upheld the trial court’s decision. Quicken then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Examined Homeowner’s Rights
Justice Hawkins explained that under the Ohio Constitution, a person must have standing to file a lawsuit, meaning a party must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. Quicken argued the standing requirement must include proof that Voss suffered an actual injury from the failure of the company to record the release on time.

Voss countered he did not need to show the delay actually harmed him, because the legislature granted him the right by law to seek the $250 penalty.

The Court agreed with Voss, noting the legislature has the power to create a “legal injury” that provides a person the right to sue for damages even if the person is not actually harmed.

“Here, the legislature has imposed a legal duty on Quicken to record a release of mortgage within 90 days, created a right in Voss to have the release recorded, and made the duty and the right enforceable by creating a right in Voss to recover $250 if Quicken fails to fulfill its duty,” the opinion stated.

Class-Action Prohibition Provision Analyzed
Quicken indicated the closure of government offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic slowed the process of recording documents with the county recorder’s offices around the state. While the General Assembly does not have complete the power to pass retroactive laws, the Court has upheld such laws under limited circumstances and has required lawmakers to expressly indicate that the law is meant to be applied retroactively.

The Court stated the legislature clearly indicated that the law, which took effect in April 2023 and applies only to actions occurring in 2020, is retroactive. The Court also said that a retroactive law is permissible if it does not impair or take away an existing right.

The Court indicated the statute only limits the ability to collect damages for mortgage-release violations that occurred in 2020 through a class-action lawsuit. It does not prevent anyone else who was impacted by the delay from pursuing a case through a different form of lawsuit, the opinion stated. And when the case reached the appeals court, the new law had taken effect. The appeals court should have considered the new version of the law before approving the certification of the class, the opinion stated.

The Court noted its opinion might have been different if, by the time the new provision took effect, a court had already awarded damages to the class members, or if the damages had already been paid.

“But, in this case, damages have not been assessed, let alone paid,” the opinion stated.

Because the new law took effect, the class must be decertified because it is not possible to obtain the $250 damage award through a class-action lawsuit for 2020 violations, the Court concluded.

Law Excluding Class Invalid, Dissent Maintained
In her opinion dissenting in part, Judge Flagg Lanzinger stated that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure have long established that class-action lawsuits are permissible, especially when a large number of people are seeking a small amount of compensation. Because R.C. 5301.36(C)(2) deals with court procedures and conflicts with court rules, the prohibition has “no force and effect,” she wrote.

She wrote that by upholding the revised law, the Court is encouraging lawmakers, in response to a real or perceived crisis, to enact retroactive laws that prohibit class-action lawsuits.

“In other words, it encourages the legislature to usurp this court’s constitutional rulemaking power. This court should avoid setting this ill-fated precedent,” Judge Flagg Lanzinger wrote.

2024-0257. Voss v. Quicken Loans, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-531.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.