ILNews

COA: Wife is liable for mortgages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment against a woman who denied signing for mortgages that are now in foreclosure; however, the judges disagreed whether the mortgage holder proved default under the terms of the notes.

This is the second appeal in the matter of Alicia Bonilla v. Commercial Services of Perry Inc., et al., No. 45A03-0803-CV-105. Initially, a trial court granted Alicia Bonilla's motion for judgment on the evidence as to whether she was liable for her deceased husband's two mortgages. Bonilla's signature was on both of the mortgages, but she denied signing. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The trial court admitted samples of Bonilla's handwriting and found a difference between the samples and the mortgage documents, but still ruled in favor of Commercial Services of Perry, which was a successor in interest to the original mortgages signed in 1984 and 1985. A judgment was entered against Bonilla for more than $540,000 on both loans.

Under Indiana Code, Bonilla's notarized signatures on the two mortgages are presumptive evidence that she signed them, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. Once she presented rebutting evidence that she signed the documents, the presumption effectively became an inference, which the trial court could weigh against her testimony and handwriting samples, the judge continued. The trial court concluded her evidence was inadequate to rebut the presumption and the Court of Appeals declined to address Bonilla's argument the trial court erred because that would require reweighing the evidence and addressing credibility.

Chief Judge Baker and Judge Paul Mathias affirmed the award of damages against Bonilla even though Perry didn't introduce the actual promissory notes underlying the mortgages. Citing the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997), and the previous appellate ruling in this matter, the majority held Perry isn't required to introduce the promissory notes into evidence to recover the debt. In addition, the record does contain evidence establishing the terms, dates, other information on the two mortgages, and indicates Bonilla conceded no payments had been made on either mortgage.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented from the majority in regards to the damages, writing that evidence on the essential terms of the notes - term payment requirements, when the notes were due - was missing.

"Although the majority infers default because Bonilla testified that no payments had been made, without the terms of the notes and the payment requirements, I am unable to agree that the evidence presented proved that the loans are in default," she 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. 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!

  2. 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.

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

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT