A missing note and messy assignment chain just derailed a foreclosure for 1900 Capital Trust and US Bank. Could your paperwork survive this kind of scrutiny?
Lost paperwork and unclear assignment chains can stall a foreclosure—just ask the parties in this recent Ohio appellate decision from September 2025.
Here’s what happened: 1900 Capital Trust II, by US Bank Trust National Association, tried to foreclose on a Cleveland home after borrower Yvonne House-Redd stopped making payments. The property originally belonged to House-Redd’s mother, who on October 27, 2003, executed a $79,000 promissory note in favor of New Century Mortgage Corporation. The note was secured by a mortgage recorded a few days later. When her mother died in 2016, House-Redd inherited the home but didn’t keep up with the mortgage.
A foreclosure was first filed in 2017 by a different trustee, but House-Redd settled with a loan modification in 2019. She didn’t make payments under the new agreement either. In January 2023, 1900 Capital Trust II filed a new foreclosure complaint, claiming it now held the note and mortgage and that the loan was in default.
The real snag came in early 2024. While preparing its motion for summary judgment, the lender discovered it couldn’t produce the original promissory note. To move forward, it sought permission to amend its complaint and filed a lost-note affidavit in February 2024, attaching a photocopy of the note and outlining the loan’s assignment history. But the affidavit and assignment documents didn’t match up. The affidavit named different parties as the note’s owner and described a chain of assignments that didn’t line up with the recorded documents. The affidavit also wasn’t properly sworn, which is required for affidavits used in summary judgment motions.
House-Redd challenged the foreclosure, arguing that the lender hadn’t proven it had the right to enforce the note and mortgage. She pointed to a “gap assignment” recorded after the lawsuit began, which was meant to fix a missing link in the assignment chain but only raised more questions about who actually owned the mortgage at the time of foreclosure.
The trial court sided with the lender, granting summary judgment and allowing the foreclosure to proceed. But the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed that decision in part. The appellate judges found that the lost-note affidavit was confusing and inconsistent, and that the assignment chain was unclear.
They also noted that the affidavit was not properly sworn, making it insufficient under court rules. Because of these unresolved factual issues, the court said summary judgment was not appropriate and sent the case back for further proceedings. However, the court did affirm the trial court’s denial of House-Redd’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, clarifying that while standing is required to sue, it does not affect the court’s basic authority to hear foreclosure cases.
For mortgage professionals, this case is a clear reminder: if you’re foreclosing without the original note, your paperwork needs to be airtight. Courts will scrutinize lost-note affidavits and assignment histories, and any confusion or missing links can delay or derail a foreclosure. Servicers and trustees need to make sure affidavits are properly sworn and that every assignment is accounted for and clearly documented.
The case doesn’t set new legal standards, but it’s a practical lesson for the industry: double-check your paperwork before heading to court. If the documentation isn’t clear and complete, you could face delays and extra costs. In 1900 Capital Trust II v. House-Redd, the lack of clear, consistent documentation put the foreclosure on hold, showing just how important these details are for anyone working in mortgage servicing or foreclosure.
