In the general sense, Abbott LLC seems to challenge the 365/360 method of calculating monthly payments, claiming that the 365/360 method conflicts with the interest rate term “per annum” and results in a higher effective interest rate than the initial rate specified in the Note. In this vein, we note that the 365/360 method has consistently withstood such legal challenges in the federal courts and in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Kreisler & Kreisler, LLC v. Nat'l City Bank, 657 F.3d 729, 733 (2011) (affirming dismissal in favor of bank and holding that 365/360 method is not inconsistent with term “per annum”); Bank of Am. v. Shelbourne Dev. Grp., Inc., 732 F.Supp.2d 809, 824 (N.D.Ill.2010) (finding no conflict in using 365/360 method and stating that applicable rates were “per annum”); JNT Props., LLC v. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 134 Ohio St.3d 209, 981 N.E.2d 804, 806 (2012) (holding that using phrase “annual interest rate” immediately before specifying 365/360 as method for computing interest does not render the former ambiguous); Asset Exch. II, LLC v. First Choice Bank, 352 Ill.Dec. 207, 953 N.E.2d 446, 454 (Ill.App.Ct.2011) (affirming dismissal in favor of bank and holding note unambiguous where payment paragraph applied 365/360 method and interest paragraph stated rate as 8.250% per annum); Hubbard Street Lofts LLC v. Inland Bank, 357 Ill.Dec. 309, 963 N.E.2d 262, 271–72 (Ill.App.Ct.2011) (affirming dismissal in favor of bank and finding no ambiguity where 365/360 method was stated in payment paragraph of note and “per annum” was stated in interest paragraph of note).Here, Abbott LLC claims that the Bank's Note is intrinsically ambiguous, citing the following sentence in the “PAYMENT” paragraph of the Note: “The annual interest rate for this Note is computed on a 365/360 basis; that is, by applying the ratio of the annual interest rate over a year of

This court faced a similar appeal in JNT Props., L.L.C. v. KeyBank N.A., 8th Dist. No. 95822, 2011-Ohio-3260, 2011 WL 2566510 (“ JNT Props. I ”). There, we also held that two similar paragraphs setting forth the interest rate were in conflict and reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted KeyBank's appeal in JNT Props. I. It has since reversed this court's decision, finding no conflict between the two paragraphs in the loan documents involved in JNT Props. I.JNT Props., L.L.C. v. KeyBank N.A., 134 Ohio St.3d 209, 2012-Ohio-5369, 981 N.E.2d 804 (“ JNT Props. II ”). The language is substantially similar in these two cases. This implicates doctrines of law of the case and retroactivity.

But plaintiffs got the benefit of their bargain, and so their breach of contract claim fails. See JNT Props., LLC v. Keybank Nat’l Ass’n , 134 Ohio St.3d 209, 981 N.E.2d 804, 806–07 (2012). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.

These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format. 134 Ohio St.3d 209, 2012-Ohio-5369.