ILNews

2 cases prompt new real estate law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

New laws designed to clarify and streamline parts of Indiana’s mortgage foreclosure process were enacted in 2012.

One change comes from Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, whose House Enrolled Act 1238 created a new section of Indiana code, “Determination of Abandonment for Property Subject to a Mortgage Foreclosure Action.” HEA 1238 took immediate effect. Another significant change comes from Sen. Joseph Zakas, R-Granger, whose Senate Enrolled Act 298 creates a new section of code negating the Supreme Court decision in Citizens Bank of New Castle v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Some changes made by SEA 298 took immediate effect, and others become effective July 1.

john waller Waller

Strict foreclosure

SEA 298 creates a strict foreclosure statute, which applies to both residential and commercial foreclosures. John Waller, a partner with Wooden & McLaughlin, said that until now, courts relied on caselaw to solve disputes involving junior liens or second mortgages that were inadvertently omitted from the foreclosure process.

Waller said that when someone buys a house, he buys it with the expectation that it’s free and clear of liens, except for his own mortgage.

“That’s kind of what happens in this sheriff’s sale world. People come in to a sheriff’s sale and they think they’re buying it free and clear, that as a part of the foreclosure process, all these other liens are being flushed away,” Waller said. “Part of what this is about is what happens to the junior lien holder’s rights, and what happens to the buyer’s rights if, in fact, there’s this dangling lien out there that was missed in the foreclosure process,” Waller said.

In the Citizens case, Countrywide Home Loans, the original lien holder on a homeowner’s property, inadvertently omitted Citizens Bank of New Castle, the junior lien holder on the property, at foreclosure. Justice Frank Sullivan wrote that the two lien holders should have been given the practical equivalent of do-over – a second foreclosure in which Citizens Bank could redeem its subordinate interest in the property. That was the decision the trial court reached. But Sullivan wrote that the Supreme Court’s majority opinion “allows the omitted party to maintain its lien on the property (now owned by Fannie Mae) but provides that the omitted party’s lien is no longer subordinate to any senior lien. That is, the Court promotes the omitted party from a junior to the senior lien holder without having to pay anything to redeem its interest.”

Zakas, who is also a lawyer, took a cue from Sullivan’s dissent.

“I think Justice Sullivan kind of gave guidance on the thinking several of us had with regard to this situation,” Zakas said of title insurance companies and lawmakers.

Terry Farmer, managing partner at Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn, said that he thinks title companies are overwhelmed with the volume of foreclosures, which results in more junior lien holders being missed at foreclosure.

“In this day and age, most title examiners are fairly error-prone on residential (foreclosures),” Farmer said. “You’re talking about a title search system that worked pretty efficiently when Vanderburgh County had 10 sheriff’s sales a month.”

At the March 29 Vanderburgh County monthly sheriff’s sale, 109 properties were up for bid.

Abandoned properties

Burton, who is a real estate broker, said that an increase in abandoned properties in recent years has put a strain on neighborhoods, where vacant homes attract crime and drive down property values for other properties.
 

He said the time from a lender’s initiation of foreclosure until it can access the property averages 422 days.

terry farmer Farmer

“Basically, as a realtor and a legislator on the banking committee, the last several years, we’ve been working very hard to try to fix this problem,” Burton said. “What we did is we passed a law that says there is a process with prima facie evidence to the court (to determine) that the property is abandoned.”

Burton said that under the new statute, if the court feels sufficient evidence exists to show that a property is abandoned, a post-complaint waiting period may be waived, shaving time off the overall foreclosure process.

Unanswered questions

Waller said he thinks that that the Legislature stopped short of fully clarifying one section of mortgage foreclosure law.

In Citimortgage v. Shannon Barabas, the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed about the application of Indiana Code 32-29-83, which the majority found precluded Citimortgage’s claim on Shannon Barabas’ property because Citimortgage failed to intervene for more than a year after it first acquired interest in the property. But Judge Elaine Brown wrote in her dissent that the statute specifies that one-year period begins with the sale of the property, and the facts of the case show Citimortgage filed a motion to intervene and for relief from the amended default judgment within one year of sale.

The statute as amended by SEA 298 adds a clause that elaborates on that disputed one-year time frame, but Waller said the language that remains about a post-sale right of redemption is open to interpretation.

“In Indiana, before all this came down, I always relied upon the fact that the right of redemption ended upon sheriff’s sale. That was the conclusion to the foreclosure suit as well as transfer of title property,” Waller said. Without clarification, he wonders if the statute’s redemption language may be applied in a way the Legislature did not intend.

On April 13, the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in Citimortgage, and Waller said the high court will base its opinion on the law as it is was prior to changes made during the 2012 legislative session.

“It could use some more work, I think, and maybe the Supreme Court will clear it up for us,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT