Voss v. Quicken Loans, LLC
In 2020, Samuel Voss purchased property in Cincinnati, Ohio. The seller used the proceeds from the sale to satisfy his mortgage with Rocket Mortgage (formerly Quicken Loans, LLC), but Rocket Mortgage did not report satisfaction of the mortgage with the county recorder’s office until after the 90-day deadline set by Ohio’s mortgage-recording statute. Mr. Voss sued Rocket Mortgage and co-defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. for violation of the statute. After a federal court decided Mr. Voss did not have Article III standing because he had not shown he suffered an injury in fact, it remanded the case to state court. The state court found Mr. Voss did have standing under Ohio law, and it certified a class of similarly situated borrowers and property owners whose mortgages were also recorded late. The companies appealed, arguing in part that Mr. Voss and the class lacked standing under Ohio law. When the appellate court affirmed the state court’s decision, the companies appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the co-defendants argue that, even though they violated the statute, and the statute specifically provides that someone in Mr. Voss’s position can sue for statutory damages, Mr. Voss cannot sue because he has not suffered a concrete injury. Their argument asks the Supreme Court of Ohio to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez, which narrowed federal standing law to focus on only harms that were traditionally cognizable at common law. The Court’s decision in TransUnion has left many harmed plaintiffs with state court as the only venue in which to bring their claims.
In our amicus brief on behalf of Public Justice, the Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice, and National Consumer Law Center, we argue that adopting TransUnion’s restrictive standards in Ohio courts would conflict with longstanding Ohio precedent and principles of federalism. Ohio courts have long held that federal standing doctrine does not apply in Ohio courts, as the Ohio Constitution does not contain a case or controversy requirement like the U.S. Constitution. And, unlike the U.S. Constitution, standing in Ohio can be conferred by statute—such as the mortgage recording statute that was the basis for Mr. Voss’s lawsuit. This is by design: In the U.S. legal system, state courts have broad general jurisdiction while federal courts have much more limited jurisdiction. Importing federal standards into state court would frustrate the historical purpose behind those distinct grants of jurisdiction and leave no remedy for statutory violations. Finally, our amicus brief argues that adopting Article III standards in Ohio would undermine the authority of Ohio’s state legislature, upset the separation of powers in Ohio, and deprive Ohioans of access to justice.
