ILNews

Husband’s agreement doesn’t preclude judgment against wife

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A company is allowed to sue both parties who executed a promissory note seeking recovery of owed funds because it will still only be entitled to one satisfaction on the debt, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

Lori Nicklas argued that Von Tobel Corp. should not have been granted summary judgment on its action seeking a judgment on a promissory note Nicklas and her husband, Shawn, signed in July 2009. The two did not pay off the note in full by the time it matured, so Von Tobel named both Shawn and Lori Nicklas as defendants, as the two were jointly and severally liable to Von Tobel under the note. Shawn Nicklas entered into an agreed judgment with Von Tobel for the full amount owed, plus interest and fees for a total of $34,696.89.

She argued the company was fully compensated through it settlement with her husband, and Von Toble was not entitled to any further recovery. A footnote points out at some point the couple separated and acted individually to defend against Von Tobel’s claim.

Lori Nicklas argued that granting summary judgment to Von Tobel effectively allows it to recover more than $73,000 from her and her husband on a debt with a principal balance of approximately $30,000.

After examining caselaw from as far back as 1872, the Court of Appeals concluded that an agreed judgment against one obligor does not merge and extinguish the obligation of another person jointly and severally liable on the same contract.

The judges pointed out that Von Tobel will not be placed in a better position than before the breach of contract because the company is entitled still to only one satisfaction of the debt. The separate judgments against the Nicklases merely allows Von Tobel the opportunity to recover from one or both of them as contemplated by the express terms of the contract, the judges held in Lori Nicklas v. Von Tobel Corporation, Individually, and d/b/a Von Tobel Lumber; and Von Tobel Lumber Company, Inc., 64A03-1310-CC-429.  

 

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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT