ILNews

Dismissed foreclosure involving merged lender reinstated

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mortgage foreclosure dismissed by a Lake Superior judge was reinstated Thursday by a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The panel reversed and remanded Judge Calvin D. Hawkins’ dismissal of a lender’s claim of damages against a widow who 20 years ago took out a $60,000 note with her husband on a Crown Point home the couple bought in 1972.

Sharon L. Hatton’s husband died in 2008, and she stopped making payments on the note in 2009, according to the record. The lender brought suit, Beneficial Financial 1 Inc., Successor in Interest to Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana v. Sharon Hatton, a/k/a Sharon J. Hatton, First Select, Inc., Calvary SPV, II, LLC, and Discover Bank, 45A03-1212-MF-531.

Hatton moved to dismiss the claim on two grounds: that an erroneous legal description invalidated the note, and that Beneficial Financial 1 failed to prove it had an interest in the property as the successor company to Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana. Hawkins granted the motion, but the appeals panel said relief under T.R. 12(B)(6) was error.

 “Moreover, Beneficial’s proof of status as surviving entity in its merger with Beneficial Mortgage Company of Indiana was sufficient to establish its standing to pursue an action to foreclose the security interest set out in the mortgage. This cause is remanded with instructions to reinstate Beneficial’s complaint for damages.”

Beneficial also must have an opportunity to prove that a mutual mistake was the cause of the erroneous legal description of the property secured by the mortgage, the panel ruled.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT