ILNews

COA finds argument that documents were ambiguous is really ‘a failure to read’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A real estate investor who argued that he should not be held personally liable because the loan documents were ambiguous was reminded by the Indiana Court of Appeals that “a failure to read does not equate with an ambiguity….”  

In Steven Weinreb v. Fannie Mae, 49A04-1211-PL-587, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment and grant of monetary award to Fannie Mae. Specifically, the court found the loan documents were not ambiguous; the non-recourse carve-outs and prepayments premium provisions of the note were enforceable; and the guaranty as well as the loan documents were not unconscionable.

It also concluded that claim preclusion and collateral estoppel do not preclude Steven Weinreb from challenging the lower court’s partial grant of summary judgment.

Weinreb, a resident of New York, and his business partners formed WK Strawbridge, LLC, in 2006 to acquire the title to Strawbridge Green Apartments in Indianapolis. Permanent financing was eventually sought from Arbor Commercial Funding, LLC, which provided a commercial loan in the principal amount of $6 million through Fannie Mae.

Beginning in December 2009, a series of mechanic’s liens were filed against the apartments, totaling $72,287.12. In July 2010, Strawbridge LLC failed to pay its monthly installments under the promissory note. A month later, Fannie Mae sent Strawbridge LLC and Weinreb a demand letter for immediate payment of the loan installments, ordering Strawbridge LLC to remit tenant rental payments directly to Fannie Mae, and advised that failure to pay amounted to a default under the terms of the note.

On July 20, 2011, Fannie Mae was awarded summary judgment in rem in the amount of $7.81 million. The trial court ordered foreclosure but found that Fannie Mae’s claims against Weinreb were not resolved by this judgment and could be pursued at a later date.

Fannie Mae then bought the apartments from the sheriff’s sale for $6.61 million, leaving a deficiency of $1.81 million plus interest and expenses. In Feb. 2012, Fannie Mae filed a complaint against Weinreb for the deficiency.

Weinreb argued he had not read the loan documents prior to signing them because the complexity of the papers was overwhelming. However, the trial court rejected Weinreb’s arguments and issued a partial summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae and against Weinreb in the amount of $1.81 million.

Weinreb appealed, again asserting, in part, that the loan documents were extrinsically ambiguous which made summary judgment inappropriate. He did not raise an issue with the language but, rather, he argued that the implementation of the agreements resulted in latent ambiguity.

The court of appeals found no ambiguity in either the note, the mortgage or the guaranty. It also did not find any ambiguity coming during the implementation.

“A failure to read does not equate with an ambiguity arising from the implementation of the clear terms of the Note, Mortgage and Guaranty,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the court.
 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT