In State Sav. Bank v. Gunther (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 338, 713 N.E.2d 7, the Court noted that the situation of State Savings was similar to that of the savings and loan institution in Jones, whose request for application of equitable subordination was denied. In determining that the trial court did not err in denying State Savings' request for equitable subrogation, this court used the language of Jones "with observations adaptable to State Savings" and determined as follows: "State Savings was in complete control of the loan application, and, yet, by its own actions and inactions, the Cootses, without acting fraudulently, were able to secure priority of their claim by filing eight days after State Savings' closing and nine months prior to State Savings. "State Savings controlled the disbursement of the funds, the filling out of all the forms, the date of the filing and even the hiring of the title company." Gunther, 127 Ohio App.3d 338 at 347, 713 N.E.2d 7.