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. 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