ILNews

COA rules on service of summons issues

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed service of summons issues in foreclosure actions in two decisions today, finding the servicing parties needed to do more to ensure the recipients actually get notice.

In Phillip Yoder, et al. v. Colonial National Mortgage, No. 32A01-0908-CV-393, the appellate judges reversed the denial of Boyd Gohl's Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside default judgment entered against him in a foreclosure action because Gohl wasn't properly served with notice. Gohl held a second mortgage on property of Phillip and Megan Yoder and Colonial attempted to foreclose on a note secured by a different mortgage executed by the couple.

Gohl's mortgage indicated he lived in LaGrange County but didn't provide an address. The judges noted that the applicable statute has since been amended to require a mailing address in order to record the conveyance of real property.

Colonial used one people-search tool to local Gohl and came up with a B. Gohl in southern Indiana. Summons sent to the southern Indiana address came back undeliverable. Colonial filed a praecipe for service by publication against the Yoders and included Gohl as a defendant.

Gohl filed his motion arguing the judgment against him was void for lack of service of process. The Court of Appeals judges agreed and reversed, finding the trial court didn't have personal jurisdiction over Gohl when it rendered the default judgment against him. Colonial failed to specifically comply with T.R. 4.13 as it pertained to effecting service of process of publication against Gohl, and it didn't perform a diligent search to determine Gohl's whereabouts. The company relied on one search that turned up a B. Gohl on the opposite end of the state from what county was listed on the mortgage. The Court of Appeals remanded with instructions for the trial court to grant Gohl's motion.

In Marilyn L. Elliott and Michael S. Elliott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., No. 30A01-0907-CV-356, the appellate judges reversed the denial of the Elliotts' motion for relief from judgment on a foreclosure complaint of JPMorgan Chase, which also included a failure to properly serve notice to the pair.

In what Chief Judge John Baker described as "Kafkaesque," the Elliotts learned default judgment had been entered against them to foreclose on their home and it was sold in a sheriff's sale, but they never received notice. They contacted the Indiana Attorney General, who referred them to the Comptroller of the Currency. It was discovered Chase was unaware of the foreclosure proceedings and found the mortgage was paid in full several years earlier. It was Chase's loan servicer, Ocwen Bank, that initiated the foreclosure proceedings because their records showed more than $85,000 was due on the mortgage.

The Elliotts sought relief from the judgment pursuant to T.R. 60(B) because they believed because Chase had released the mortgage and denied knowledge of the foreclosure action, the underlying judgment was void. The trial court denied their motion.

The fact Chase showed the mortgage fully paid and executed and recorded a full satisfaction of the mortgage allowed the Elliotts to implicitly aver that an accord and satisfaction had taken place, wrote the chief judge. In addition, the pair filed the motion within a reasonable time. The appellate court reversed and remanded for retrial.

The service of summons on the Elliotts didn't follow T.R. 4.1 because the sheriff who served a copy of the foreclosure action at the house didn't also send a copy by first-class mail. The appellate court didn't rule on the issue of whether it was improper because it had found in the Elliotts' favor based on other reasoning. But the judges did caution practitioners, trial courts, and law enforcement personnel to be mindful of the requirements of Trial Rule 4.1(B).

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT