ILNews

Judges: Grant bank’s request for receiver

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because PNC Bank was able to show that the requisite provisions of Indiana Code 32-30-5-1 have been satisfied and it did not relinquish its right to the appointment of a receiver, the trial court order denying PNC’s request for appointment of a receiver was an error, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded.

In June 2004, the bank and LA Development entered into a loan agreement, with obligations due to the bank secured by two mortgages. In the fall of 2008, LA Development needed more money to complete a housing development; INTA LLC agreed to advance $705,000 to LA Development. A three-party closing occurred between LA Development, INTA and PNC Bank, which included a subordination agreement that made all liens, mortgages, encumbrances, security interests and assignments of every kind granted to the bank subordinated and made secondary to those of INTA.

Two years later, PNC filed a complaint for damages to foreclose on the mortgages and for appointment of receiver against LA Development, INTA, and two individuals who guaranteed the loans. At issue on interlocutory appeal is the denial by the trial court to appoint a receiver.

PNC argued that it satisfied the requirements of I.C. 32-30-5-1(4)(B) and (C), which required the trial court to appoint a receiver. INTA maintained that the bank relinquished its right to the mandatory appointment of a receiver in the subordination agreement.

The Court of Appeals found the subordination agreement is ambiguous, so the judges looked to the parties’ intent when construing the agreement and the other closing documents. The argument that the bank subordinated all of its default rights and remedies in the mortgages by signing the subordination agreement, as INTA argued, can’t be reconciled with the language in the forbearance agreement signed on the same date and at the same closing, wrote Senior Judge Carr Darden.

Also, the extrinsic evidence shows that the parties didn’t intend to subordinate all rights and remedies. The bank foreclosed on the housing development, which INTA concedes is authorized.

“If the Bank waived all of its enforcement rights and remedies under the mortgages by executing the Subordination Agreement, then the right to foreclose on Harrison Crossing would be included. Either the Bank subordinated all of its enforcement rights and remedies in the mortgages or it did not. INTA cannot pick and choose which rights and remedies the Bank subordinated to support its argument,” Darden wrote.

The judges ordered the trial court grant PNC’s request for the appointment of a receiver.

 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT