ILNews

Court rules on bank interpleader case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has issued a decision on how a state statute governs recovery when a financial institution interpleads and pays into court-deposited funds that are subject to an adverse claim.

A unanimous opinion came Wednesday in Porter Development, LLC v. First National Bank of Valparaiso, No.64S04-0606-CV-236, stemming from a Porter Superior case involving the bank and the development company.

First National initiated the action as an interpleader, alleging it was the holder of a $100,000 certificate of deposit owned by Porter Development and eventually assigned to another party, Eagle Services Corp., which refused to consent for withdrawing the funds as the development company wanted. Both asserted their rights to the deposit and filed suits.

The trial court determined the assignment to Eagle Services was invalid and Porter Development was the true owner, but it granted summary judgment to the bank on the interpleader action and partial summary judgment to Porter on a request to recover attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, and now the justices have done the same.

"We conclude that Indiana's Adverse Claim Interpleader statute is mandatory and establishes the right of a depository financial institution that pays funds subject to an adverse claim into a court 'to recover and collect the costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the depository financial institution'...."Justice Brent Dickson wrote. "We hold, however, that such a right to recovery only includes those costs and expenses that are extended in bringing a proper interpleader, or successfully defending its use of interpleader."

Justices reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment denying the bank attorney fees, remanding it to determine reasonable expenses and how Eagle Services - if at all - should be involved in the payment.
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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT