if they do not hold the legal title. See Albright v. Meredith, 58 Ohio St. 194, 50 N.E. 719, 719 (syllabus ¶ 1) (Ohio 1898) (“In order to support a mortgage, it is not necessary that the mortgagor shall be the absolute owner of the property mortgaged.”). In other words, “[i]t is not necessary that the mortgagor shall have the entire title [because] [a] limited or special interest in property is sufficient to support a mortgage of it.” Id. at 719. See also Wright v. Franklin Bank, 59 Ohio St. 80, 51 N.E. 876, 876 (syllabus ¶ 3) (Ohio 1898) (“A mortgage upon an estate, or any interest therein, legal or equitable, to be valid as against third persons, must be signed, acknowledged, witnessed, and recorded ....” (emphasis added)); In re Willingham, 139 B.R. 670, 673 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1991) (<HOLDING>). The Debtors, therefore, had the ability to
holding that under california law a constructive trust may be sought only by the equitable owner of the trust res not by a creditor of the equitable owner holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law holding states property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a special sovereignty interest holding constitutional a statute providing that a mineral interest would lapse to the surface owner if the interest owner either made no use of the interest or failed to file a claim with the state within a twenty year period