ILNews

COA affirms use of equitable subrogation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to award title over a disputed piece of property, but reversed regarding the order the defendant pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees.

Lori Eifrid filed claims against Daniel Millikan for foreclosure, specific performance and promissory estoppel regarding a certain parcel of real property. The trial court applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation and awarded the property to Eifrid.

The property in question is a parcel of land directly to the south of Eifrid’s parcel (Parcel A), which is referred to as the Triangle. Without it, Eifrid’s ingress and egress to the cul-de-sac is effectively prevented. Millikan owns property adjacent to Eifrid’s property.

In 2001, Millikan’s brother executed a warranty deed transferring and conveying Eifrid’s parcel and the Triangle to Roger Maxey. Those two pieces were identified as single parcels of property. Maxey got a mortgage on those properties. Maxey agreed to swap with Millikan the Triangle for a 4-foot-wide strip of land just east of Parcel A.  Eventually, Maxey executed a warranty deed in lieu of foreclosure in favor of the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs on Parcel A and the Triangle, which then sold the property to Eifrid in 2006. She was given a deed that said Parcel A and the Triangle were a single tract, so she believed she was buying land that included access to the cul-de-sac.

Eifrid learned of the issues caused by the attempted “swap” of the properties between Millikan and Maxey when she received notice that a mortgage company was seeking to foreclose on the strip, which is a 4-foot-wide strip of land directly east of Parcel A. She sought to foreclose on the mortgage on the strip, and she purchased the land at a sheriff’s sale. She then filed her complaint of foreclosure, specific performance and promissory estoppel against Millikan for a determination that her legal title to the Triangle is superior to any right, title or interest Millikan might claim and that Millikan exchange the Triangle for the strip of land.

The trial court originally gave Millikan clear title to the Triangle and Eifrid title to the strip. She filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court granted. It then ruled in favor of Eifrid and awarded her legal title of the Triangle. It also ordered Millikan pay Eifrid’s attorney fees even though it did not find he committed fraud.

In Daniel P. Millikan v. Lori A. Eifrid, No. 92A03-1109-PL-433, the COA affirmed, finding the trial court did not err in determining that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applied in these circumstances. There is no showing that Eifrid or the SVA are culpably negligent in failing to discover the improper swap of the property, wrote Judge John Baker.

The trial court did abuse its discretion in ordering Millikan to pay Eifrid’s attorney fees because it did not find Millikan committed fraud or conversion and there’s no statement that Millikan was litigating the matter in bad faith. The judges remanded with instructions to vacate the award of attorney fees.

 

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT