ILNews

COA adopts rule allowing for partial subordination of 1st lienholder’s interest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday decided the state should follow the majority rule on agreements to modify the priority of liens securing interests in a borrower’s assets.

Timothy, Lisa, Ross and Dane Clark and their farming operations pledged their 2010 crops as collateral to obtain loans from First Farmers Bank & Trust, Co-Alliance, LLP, and Monticello Farm Service, Inc. First Farmers was the first lienholder, Co-Alliance the second lienholder, and Monticello the third lienholder.  In June 2010, the bank and Monticello entered into an agreement in which Monticello would finance the Clarks’ 2010 crops, and in turn, the bank agreed to subordinate its interests in those crops to Monticello’s interests in the same.

Due to financial issues, Timothy and Lisa Clark entered into a settlement agreement which held the proceeds of their 2010 crop – $181,000, in an escrow account. Monticello sought to claim those proceeds based on the subordination agreement; Co-Alliance counterclaimed against Monticello, asserting it held the first priority lien. The trial court found Monticello was entitled to the disputed funds.

“The clear language of the subordination agreement shows that the parties’ intent was for the Bank to assign to Monticello a portion of any 2010 crop proceeds received by the Bank based on its status as the first lienholder. How else could the Bank have induced Monticello to make a loan but to guarantee it the right of first payment? Under these circumstances, treating a subordination of an interest differently from an assignment of that interest would add confusion to the law, not clarity, and would allow an intervening lienholder to obtain a windfall by becoming a senior lienholder through no action of his own,” Senior Judge Randall T. Shepard wrote. “Put another way, the agreement in this case is the functional and legal equivalent of a partial assignment. And in fact, such ‘partial subordination’ is the majority approach to subordination agreements.”

The appellate court rejected Co-Alliance’s claim that the court should adopt the approach that the bank’s lien drops to the end of the line based on the agreement. The COA instead adopted the majority rule, which allows for partial subordination of the first lienholder’s interest.

“The Bank could induce Monticello to finance the Clarks’ 2010 crops by giving Monticello its right to first payment. By virtue of the subordination agreement, Monticello would be paid first, but only up to the amount of the Bank’s senior claim, to which Co-Alliance was in any event junior. Co-Alliance would still receive what it expected to receive had there been no subordination agreement,” he wrote in Co-Alliance, LLP v. Monticello Farm Service, Inc., 91A05-1312-PL-607.
 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT