ILNews

Court rules on post-merger bank foreclosure rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a federal statute provides the authority for a bank that survives after a merger to enforce the promissory note and mortgage established by a predecessor bank.

In CFS, LLC and Charles Blackwelder v. Bank of America, Successor in Interest to LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association, No. 29A02-1105-MF-436, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling by Hamilton Circuit Judge Paul Felix that granted summary judgment in favor of Bank of America.

The case involves a promissory note and construction mortgage that CFS obtained in June 2007 in exchange for a $982,500 loan from LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association. Christopher Blackwelder executed a personal guaranty of the debt, but in August 2004 Bank of America – which had merged with and was a successor-in-interest to LaSalle – filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint alleging the loan was in default. CFS admitted to the debt but asserted it didn’t have any knowledge of the merger or Bank of America’s role as successor and right to collect the balance.

Bank of America moved for summary judgment on grounds that it had merged and had the authority to collect the debt or foreclose, and after a December 2010 hearing the trial judge took the matter under advisement. He initially declined summary judgment after the bank couldn’t provide any caselaw authority proving a successor-in-interest is sufficient to prove ownership, but he later granted summary judgment when Bank of America filed a motion to correct error that cited a federal statute providing that authority.

The bank cited 12 U.S.C. § 215a(e) that outlines the corporate existence of each merging bank and how all rights, franchises and interests of the individual merging banks are transferred to the successor merged bank without any deed or other transfer being needed.

Although the bank referenced a copy of the merger certificate and no factual dispute existed that a merger had occurred, Bank of America didn’t include a copy of that merger certificate. The trial court granted its judgment of foreclosure and decree of sale in the bank’s favor in April 2011. Appealing, CFS alleged the trial court granted summary judgment only after improperly considering “new evidence” about that federal statute.

The Court of Appeals ruled that Bank of America didn’t have to attach a copy of the merger when there was no factual dispute it had happened, and that the federal statute wasn’t “new evidence” presented to the trial court. The appellate panel found that no genuine issue of material fact existed about the merger and that summary judgment was properly granted to Bank of America.

 

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT