ILNews

Appellate ruling addresses priority rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In reversing summary judgment for a home loan company on its complaint for strict foreclosure, the Indiana Court of Appeals specifically adopted the reasoning set forth in a federal decision involving priority rights on liens.

In Citizens State Bank of New Castle v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., No. 76A03-0909-CV-423, Citizens State Bank appealed summary judgment in favor of Countrywide Home Loans on its complaint for strict foreclosure and the denial of the bank's motion for summary judgment on its complaint to foreclose judgment lien against Federal National Mortgage Association.

Countrywide held a mortgage on property in which Citizens obtained a default judgment against the owners, which was properly recorded. Just a few months later, Countrywide filed to foreclose on the property and didn't name the bank as a defendant in its complaint to foreclose. Countrywide then got the title to the property at a sheriff's sale, recorded it, and then transferred it to FNMA. After learning about the bank's judgment lien against the property, Countrywide filed its complaint for strict foreclosure against the bank. Citizens State Bank filed its complaint to foreclose its judgment lien on the property against FNMA.

The issue on appeal is what rights, if any, Countrywide or FNMA has regarding Countrywide's attempt at strict foreclosure. Strict forclosure permits a party who has acquired title through or after a foreclosure sale or gotten the title through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to cut off the interests of any junior lienholders who weren't parties to the foreclosure action.

The appellate court relied on Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Mark Dill Plumbing Co., 903 N.E.2d 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), and Brightwell v. United States, 805 F. Supp. 1464 (S.D. Ind. 1992), to overturn the trial court's ruling. In Deutsche, the appellate court held that a lender could not by strict foreclosure simply remove the liens of junior lienholders from the lender's title to the real estate. Brightwell addressed how to determine priority rights of superior and junior lienholders in cases where the superior lienholder has acquired fee simple title by foreclosure sale and no longer holds a mortgage. It also discussed merging the mortgage with the title.

Although the Court of Appeals hasn't had occasion to do so until now, it specifically adopted the reasoning set forth in Brightwell to determine priority rights.

"In light of the purpose of the anti-merger rule, which is to protect the mortgagee's priority and give the mortgagee 'first crack' at a full recovery, there is no valid reason for that mortgage-assertion right to pass to subsequent purchasers or transferees," wrote Judge Terry Crone. "To hold otherwise would permit for double recovery of the mortgage indebtedness, a result clearly not favored in equity and not intended by the anti-merger rule."

By transferring the property to FNMA, Countrywide had first crack at a full recovery ahead of any junior lienholders and no longer had any interest in the property to protect. As such, there was no basis for its mortgage-assertion right to pass to FNMA, the judge continued.

Brightwell correctly states Indiana law regarding priority rights when a foreclosing mortgagee sells the property to a third party.

"When property is transferred for value or resold to a third party, that party cannot then assert what was formerly a superior mortgage lien position against the judgment lien. Rather, the third party takes the property subject to the valid judgment lien. This is fair and just," the judge wrote.

The appellate court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Citizens on Countrywide's complaint and to enter summary judgment for the bank on its complaint to foreclose judgment lien.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT