ILNews

Interest rate charged by bank upheld by Court of Appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals relied on a similar case out of Ohio to find that a bank did not exceed the agreed-upon interest rate of commercial borrowers by applying a 365/360 interest calculation method as some borrowers claimed in a class action.

Lake City Bank filed a commercial foreclosure action against certain borrowers. John M. Abbott LLC was the lead plaintiff in a counterclaim seeking certification as a class and alleging that Lake City Bank had breached the terms of promissory notes pertaining to the interest rate. The promissory note John Abbott on behalf of the LLC says, “The annual interest rate for this Note is computed on a 365/360 basis; that is, by applying the ration of the annual interest rate over a year of 360 days, multiplied by the outstanding principal balance, multiplied by the actual number of days the principal balance is outstanding.”  The note also includes information with regard to the variable interest rate.

The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment.

In John M. Abbott, LLC, Class Representative and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lake City Bank, 02A05-1402-PL-53, the judges noted it seems that the Abbott LLC challenged the 365/360 method of calculating payments, claiming this method conflicts with the interest rate term “per annum” and results in a higher effective interest rate than the initial rate specified in the note. But this method has been consistently upheld in federal courts and other jurisdictions, Judge Terry Crone pointed out.

Abbott LLC claimed the bank’s note is intrinsically ambiguous and challenges the use of the term “annual interest rate” instead of “annual interest payments” or “annual interest amount” immediately proceeding the statement concerning the use of the 365/360 method.

The COA found the Ohio Supreme Court decision, JNT Props., LLC v. KeyBank Nat’l Ass’n, 981 N.E.2d 804, 806 (Ohio 2012), to be persuasive. Just as the Ohio court held, the Indiana judges found that the explanatory phrase that immediately follows the disputed clause negates any confusion that otherwise might have been caused by the inclusion of the term “annual interest rate” instead of “annual interest amount” when specifying the method of calculating payments.

“As in KeyBank, the Note makes it clear that the term being defined (the 365/360 method) is the method of computing regular interest payments, not the annual interest rate. As for the interest rate, the ‘VARIABLE INTEREST RATE’ paragraph clearly states that the interest rate will be tied to the ‘Five Year Treasury Bill’ index.

There is also no designated evidence to indicate that John Abbott did not understand what he was signing or that he sought clarification before doing so, the judges noted.
 

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT