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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT