ILNews

COA finds trust that bought foreclosed home gained insurance equity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An estate that purchased a foreclosed house at a sheriff’s sale established an equitable lien through which it was entitled to collect proceeds in the event of an insured loss, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The decision in The Marling Family Trust v. Allstate Ins. Company, 49A02-1203-CT-186, regards the trust’s purchase of a home on West Henry Street in Indianapolis that had been owned by Thomas Pipes. A claim arose when the purchased home was found to have sustained interior water damage.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate without issuing findings.

In reversing the Marion Superior Court ruling, the COA found that the trial court erred in its application of an appellate panel’s rehearing of Lakeshore Bank & Trust Company v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. 474 N.E.2d 1024, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985).   

“The trust’s mortgage agreement with Pipes required Pipes to insure the property for the benefit of the trust as mortgagee. Under Lakeshore, this is sufficient to give rise to an equitable lien in the trust’s favor,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the unanimous panel.

“The trust protected its equitable interest in the policy proceeds by informing Allstate of its mortgagee status before any policy proceeds were distributed. Thus, to the extent that the loss here is otherwise covered under the terms of Pipes’ insurance policy, the trust may recover policy proceeds.

“We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a determination of whether the loss is covered under the policy,” Vaidik wrote.






 


 

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. 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.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT