ILNews

Bank wins in appeal of foreclosure action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on its action to foreclose on a mortgage and collect from the guarantor of the loan, ruling that the loan documents were properly assigned to the bank.

In the summer of 2006, Riviera Plaza Investments, by Haresh Shah, executed and delivered a note by which it promised to pay Citibank the sum of $2,925,000 in monthly installment payments of principal plus interest. On the same date, Riviera, again by Shah, executed a mortgage in order to secure the payment of the note. Shah executed a guaranty in favor of
Citibank.

Riviera failed to make the scheduled monthly payments on the note, which led to Citibank initiating foreclosure proceedings against Riviera in 2010. Citibank sold the loan documents at issue to Nova Investments, which later assigned them to Wells Fargo during the course of this foreclosure action.

The trial court ruled in favor of Wells Fargo with regard to Riviera and Shah, and entered a decree of foreclosure in July 2013.

Appellants claim that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of Wells Fargo because Wells Fargo failed to prove a valid assignment of the loan documents, but the designated evidence shows that Citibank assigned its right, title and interest in the note and mortgage to Nova, which in turn assigned those to Wells Fargo, the COA held in Riviera Plaza Investments, LLC and Haresh Shah v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 02A03-1308-MF-323.

The judges also rejected Riveria and Shah’s claims that the trial court erred in finding Wells Fargo was entitled to recover from the appellants; that the assignment of the loan documents did not constitute a material alteration which would release Shah from his obligation under the guaranty; and that Wells Fargo was entitled to an award of interest.

Judge Cale Bradford pointed out that the appellants never objected to the substitution of Wells Fargo as the real party in interest and plaintiff on the amended complaint.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT