ILNews

Couple should have jury trial on legal claims

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A couple whose home is being foreclosed on is entitled to a jury trial on their legal claims against the mortgage holder and loan servicer, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Mary Beth and Perry Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al., No. 28A01-0910-CV-482, Mary Beth and Perry Lucas filed an interlocutory appeal after their request for a jury trial on several counterclaims and third-party claims raised against U.S Bank and Litton Loan Servicing was denied. The Lucases had problems almost immediately after closing their mortgage. They claimed the loan rate and monthly payments were incorrect and there were disputes about the purchase of hazard insurance and escrow amount problems.

The Lucases filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection a little over a year after entering into the loan. The bankruptcy was discharged after four months, but there were issues about fees between the Lucases and Litton. The couple even sought assistance from Indiana Legal Services.

U.S. Bank filed a complaint to foreclose on the mortgage in early 2009; the Lucases alleged that Argent, the company they originally had the loan through, violated the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, that U.S. Bank committed conversion and deception under the Civil Damages Statute, and that U.S. Bank breached its contractual obligations and its duty of good faith and fair dealing. They also sued Litton for breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and claimed Litton violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and RESPA. The couple also claims they are entitled to damages because Litton committed conversion.

Using Songer v. Civitas Bank, 771 N.E.2d 61, 63 (Ind. 2002), the appellate court analyzed the instant case and found the Lucases to be entitled to a jury trial on their legal claims. While a foreclosure action is essentially equitable and it’s well settled that equitable claims are tried to a court instead of a jury, the fact that a cause contains a foreclosure action doesn’t necessarily draw the entire cause into equity, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The claims against the bank and loan servicer are grounded in federal and state statutory law, and state common law, all of which are legal causes of action. The majority of relief requested by the Lucases is money damages, a legal remedy, wrote the chief judge. In addition, the nature of many of their claims is different from the bank’s request to foreclose as they are grounded in consumer protection statutes.

“In light of the nature of the claims, the rights and interests involved, and the majority of the relief requested, we cannot say that the essential features of this cause are equitable,” he wrote.

The cause was remanded with instructions to grant the Lucases’ motion for a jury trial on their legal claims.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT