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. 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