ILNews

Durham, other guarantors must post collateral on bond

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Tim Durham and two other men who promised to indemnify and post collateral on a surety bond issued by Frontier Insurance Co. must post collateral on that bond.  

Durham, Terry Whitesell and J. Roe Hitchcock were the principals of CT Acquisition. The company agreed in 1999 to buy Evans Trailers and John Evans Sales Co., with the price to be paid over time. The sellers insisted on a surety bond, which was put up by Frontier, but also demanded personal guarantees from the three principals.

CT didn’t pay up and the guarantors failed to keep their promise, leaving the sellers to turn to Frontier. But Frontier couldn’t pay on the bond because it was in financial distress and placed in “rehabilitation” by the New York Superintendent of Financial Services. Frontier then sought funds from the guarantors to honor their commitment to the sellers, demanding Durham, Whitesell and Hitchock post collateral under their agreement with Frontier. The men didn’t pay up.

After the sellers sued Frontier and earned a judgment of more than $1.5 million, plus post-judgment interest in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Frontier sued the guarantors. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District ordered the three men to deposit $1,559,256.78 with the clerk.

The guarantors argued based on their agreement with Frontier they didn’t have to post collateral until Frontier paid the sellers and that their only obligation is to indemnify Frontier after the fact. They hope that the ongoing rehabilitation will prevent Frontier from paying or reduce the amount it owes.

“Paragraph 3 says that a demand for collateral may occur ‘before [Frontier] may be required to make any payment thereunder.’ The Guarantors must keep their promise to post collateral,” Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in Frontier Insurance Company v. J. Roe Hitchcock, Timothy S. Durham and Terry G. Whitesell, 11-3510.

“If the existence of a fund in the registry of the district court permits Frontier to pay the Sellers 100 cents on the dollar, the Guarantors have no legitimate complaint. There is no reason why Frontier’s financial troubles should benefit the Guarantors at the expense of the Sellers,” he continued. “If, however, New York’s insurance authorities instruct or permit Frontier to pay the Sellers less than the face value of the surety bond, then the Clerk of the district court will return the excess to the Guarantors. The final disposition of these funds thus depends on the outcome of Frontier’s rehabilitation. Until then, however, Frontier is entitled to the security that the Guarantors promised to provide.”

Durham was convicted last year in federal court in Indianapolis of 12 felony fraud charges and sentenced to 50 years for his role in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded Ohio investors out of $250 million. The charges stemmed from the collapse of Fair Finance Co. in Akron, Ohio. His law license in Indiana has been suspended, and his appeal in that case is being handled pro bono by a Chicago firm.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT