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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT