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

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