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 is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT