ILNews

COA reverses in foreclosure dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a couple’s motion for relief from judgment and request for attorney fees in a foreclosure dispute, finding the couple established the party seeking to foreclose on their property acted in bad faith.

Through a business transaction, John Nowak gave Brett Gibson a promissory note in the amount of $350,000 for stock. To secure payment of the note, Nowak granted Gibson a second mortgage against his home in Indianapolis and against his vacation property in Michigan. Irwin Mortgage Corp. held a prior mortgage on the Indiana real estate. Nowak sold the Indiana property six months later to Thomas and Elizabeth Neu. A title search did not reveal Gibson’s mortgage on the property.

Nowak defaulted on the promissory note to Gibson, so Gibson sought to foreclose on the Indiana and Michigan properties. Gibson obtained a judgment foreclosure in the Michigan case and purchased the property at a public auction. When Gibson filed a motion in 2007 requesting the Indiana trial court grant him a foreclosure judgment against the Neus’ property, he mentioned the Michigan property but did not say that a sheriff’s sale had taken place and he was the winning bidder.

The Indiana trial court eventually entered a judgment of foreclosure against the Indiana property in favor of Gibson for more than $380,000 plus interest, attorney fees and costs. The trial court also denied the Neus’ request for a sheriff’s sale. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed. The Neus then filed a motion for relief from judgment and for attorney fees, asking the court to deem Gibson’s foreclosure decree fully satisfied because Gibson had reduced his promissory note to judgment in Michigan and bid the full amount of that judgment to acquire his Michigan collateral at a sheriff’s sale.

After deducting the amount of Gibson’s bid to purchase the Michigan real estate, the trial court ordered the balance due on his judgment was $74,716.

In Thomas A. Neu and Elizabeth A. Neu, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brett Gibson, No. 49A02-1109-MF-842, the appellate court found that the proceedings dealing with the Indiana property became fully satisfied when Gibson got the foreclosure judgment on the Michigan property and submitted a full credit bid based on the same promissory note that was the basis of the Indiana foreclosure proceedings. The judges also found the Neus established bad faith when Gibson failed to disclose the Michigan foreclosure judgment and sheriff’s sale. They ordered the trial court determine reasonable attorney fees in favor of the Neus starting from Aug. 8, 2007, the date of the Michigan sheriff’s sale.


 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT