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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT