ILNews

Doctrine of res judicata stops property owner’s motion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A property owner’s attempt to file a separate action against a court-appointed receiver was derailed by the Indiana Court of Appeals under the doctrine of res judicata.

The case originated from a foreclosure action filed by PNC Bank against Luxury Townhomes, LLC and LP XXIV, LLC. As part of the foreclosure, the trial court appointed Kenneth Polsinelli of McKinley Properties, Inc. as the receiver.

After PNC and Luxury reached a settlement, they filed a joint motion requesting dismissal of the foreclosure action, and a separate motion asking that Polsinelli be discharged and the receivership estate be settled.  

Luxury also filed a request for leave to join and assert claims against Polsinelli and McKinley.

At an evidentiary hearing to review Polsinelli’s final report, Luxury objected to the report. The landlord, claiming Polsinelli had negligently performed his duties, wanted permission to recover both his bond and additional funds through a separate negligence action.

The trial court found Polsinelli did not act negligently. It accepted the final report, denied Luxury’s motion for leave, discharged Polsinelli and his bond, and closed the receivership estate.

Luxury then filed a motion to correct error which the trial court denied.

In Luxury Townhomes, LLC/LP XXIV, LLC, et al. v. McKinley Properties, Inc. and Kenneth Polsinelli, 49A05-1210-MF-514, the COA affirmed the denial of Luxury’s motion to correct error. It ruled the trial court’s actions in closing the receivership estate precluded a later determination that Polsinelli acted negligently.

 “Because the trial court has already made a factual determination on Polsinelli’s performance as receiver after a three-day evidentiary hearing and has discharged Polsinelli and closed the receivership estate, we conclude that any subsequent suit by Luxury regarding issue of whether Polsinelli faithfully carried out his duties as receiver is barred by the issue preclusion branch of the doctrine of res judicata,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the court.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT