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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT