Kentucky ruling prevents Indiana court from addressing claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because the principles of full faith and credit required a Clark Circuit court to consider the judgments of a Kentucky court involving the default of promissory notes on property in Kentucky and Indiana, there was no error by the Indiana court in granting a bank the right to foreclose.

Robert and Beverly Setree obtained three promissory notes from River City Bank, which were secured by mortgages on real estate they owned in Jeffersonville, Ind., and Louisville, Ky. The Setrees failed to pay Indiana real estate taxes on a property, bringing them in default of the terms of a 2007 note. By not paying the taxes on the property, it triggered River City’s right to accelerate all debts due and owed under the other notes and foreclose on all the mortgages it held on the Setrees’ various properties.

Two actions were started in Clark Circuit Court and two in Jefferson Circuit Court in Kentucky. The Kentucky court entered a final judgment and ordered the sale of two Kentucky properties.

At issue in this case is the Clark Circuit Court grant of River City’s motion for summary judgment to foreclose on an Indiana property entered after the Kentucky court ruled. The Indiana court ruled that res judicata prevented the relitigation of the Setrees’ default on the 2007 note and mortgage.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the Kentucky judgments had acquired subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties before it, so it must afford full faith and credit to those opinions.

In the instant case, res judicata is more properly defined as issue preclusion, Judge Patricia Riley wrote in Robert R. Setree, II, and Beverly L. Setree v. River City Bank, 10A01-1311-MF-485.  

“The same issues—the Setrees’ failure to pay Indiana property tax pursuant to their 2007 Note and their right to cure—between the same parties—the Setrees and River City—governed the Kentucky cases and this appeal. River City’s right to foreclose on all three notes was triggered as a result of the Setrees’ failure to pay their Indiana taxes on the Cardinal Lane Property,” she wrote.

“Because of cross-default provisions in the three notes executed between the Setrees and River City, the Setrees’ default under the 2007 Note constituted a default under the previously executed two notes as well. Therefore, the Kentucky courts’ decisions to grant River City the right to foreclose on the Setrees’ Kentucky properties necessarily included a determination of default under the 2007 Note—the issue before the trial court,” she continued.

“Although the Kentucky cases concerned different mortgages and different property than the instant cause, they litigated the same issues between the same parties: the Setrees’ failure to pay the Indiana taxes on the Cardinal Lane Property and the Setrees’ right to cure its failure under the 2007 Note. Therefore, granting the Kentucky judgments full faith and credit, we are precluded from addressing the Setrees’ claim.”



  • Did ky rule on IN contract?
    Did Indiana legislature expect a KY court to remove the contractal requiremnt of INdiana MOrtgages to contain notice and right to cure? INside the KY cases is the pleading saying KY requires no Notice of default. The KY court made no determination of the Indiana Notice and right to cure.
  • What did the KY court decide
    RCB testified it sent no notice and no right to cure in either state. Ky lawyers wrote briefs for the KY commissioner about the Indiana Mortgage. The KY court determined the quietus money to be unsecured debt. Both KY courts refused to pay the quietus money out of the proceeds of the land sale. RCB never testified that all conditions precendent were met. The court ignored the payments accepted by RCB after the foreclosure was filed. RCB business records showed no payments late. I can tell you RCB intend to add the quietus to the back of the loan. Proved by email and blue ink signature. This is not simple foreclosure, the bank has unclean hands. The Judge accepted that a letter written by the Setree's more than 10 days after the foreclosure was filed was Notice from RCB, and rejected the Setree claim that their knowledge and their hand can not be Notice. From what you read here res judicata is being used because the normal facts in a foreclosure will not let the bank win. I am represented. We would like to hear your detailed comments. Bob Setree

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.