ILNews

COA reverses ruling in right of contribution case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Court of Appeals used common law today to reverse a judgment in favor of a man suing his business partner for failing to contribute to guarantee payments.

Frank Rogers co-owned two businesses with Equicor Development, in which Gregory Small is president – Plainfield Place and Patriot’s Place. In Plainfield Place, Equicor owned about 40 percent membership interests, Rogers had nearly 54 percent and another man had nearly 6 percent. Equicor and Rogers each owned a 50 percent membership interest in Patriot’s Place.

The men purchased property to develop and entered into loan agreements with Busey Bank on the Plainfield Place land and with Monroe Bank for the Patriot’s Place land. The men executed personal guaranties as security for the promissory notes.

They defaulted on the notes; Rogers paid some money to the banks, but Small did not. Rogers sued Small, asserting a “right of contribution” against him for the amount paid by Rogers in excess of his pro rata share and for the disproportionate benefit received by Small through Equicor’s management fees and real estate commissions. Both men filed for summary judgment; the trial court ruled in favor of Rogers, finding it wasn’t necessary for Rogers to have paid the liability in full and the law finds the right of contribution when one party pays more than his share of the common obligation. It awarded $43,050.47 in damages to Rogers.

But the trial court erred in ruling in favor of Rogers, the appellate court held in Gregory M. Small v. Frank A. Rogers, No. 29A02-1001-PL-30. Using common law because Indiana Code is silent as to the liability between co-guarantors, the Court of Appeals applied the same theory of contribution that has been applied to co-sureties – “the right of contribution operates to make sure those who assume a common burden carry it in equal portions.”  

In order to be entitled to contribution, Rogers had to have paid the debt or more than his proportionate share of it. But the evidence showed he only paid a portion of the amounts due under the promissory notes and far less than his share of the debts.

Judge Carr Darden wrote that Rogers’ reliance on Balvich v. Spicer, 894 N.E.2d 235, 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), is misplaced. In Balvich, the banks reduced the co-guarantors’ debt to two judgments and the Spicers had paid more than their proportionate share, thereby satisfying the judgments. In the instant case, the debt owed by Rogers and Small hadn’t been reduced to judgment, so there can be no satisfaction of the judgment and no discharge of the debt, wrote Judge Darden.

“Rather, in this case, the debt still exists. Rogers did not discharge the debt, either by paying the debt or a judgment on the debt. Furthermore, the amounts paid by Rogers do not constitute more than his proportionate share of the more than $5,000,000.00 of debt incurred,” wrote the judge.

“To hold otherwise would result in a claim for contribution being asserted upon each and every payment made toward a debt until the debt is discharged,” he wrote in a footnote. “Of course, this is not to say that the amounts paid toward a debt cannot, or will not, be credited to the party asserting the right of contribution once the guaranteed debt is discharged.”
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT