ILNews

Judges find certain property not included in sheriff's sale

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals relied on a decision from Colorado to rule on a case involving the sale of business personal property at a sheriff’s sale when the notice only mentioned the sale of real property.

Lorenzo and Joette Surrisi appealed the Marshall Circuit Court order that said their real and business personal property were sold to James Bremner at a sheriff’s sale. The Surrisis owned City Tavern in Culver and lived on the premises. Bremner loaned the couple money in return for a security interest in their alcohol beverage permit and a real estate mortgage, security agreement and fixture filing – all of which granted in the case of a default, a mortgage on the property and security interest in all personal property and fixtures, including those owned by the Surrisis for their personal use.

The Surrisis defaulted and the parties agreed that the real property and personal property would be sold at a sheriff’s sale. But the praecipe for sheriff’s sale and the notice posted about the sheriff’s sale only mentioned real property. Before the sale, the Surrisis removed all their personal property. Bremner was the highest bidder at the sale.

At a hearing, the trial court judge found that the sale of the business personal property was adequately supported by the agreed judgment, the post-judgment agreements of the party and the bill of sale issued by the sheriff.

In Lorenzo Surrisi, Individually and d/b/a City Tavern and Joette Surrisi, Individually and d/b/a City Tavern v. James D. Bremner, No. 50A04-1102-MF-83, the appellate court agreed with the Surrisis that the bill of sale was faulty because according to the praecipe of sale, notice of sale and tax documentation, only the real property was subject to the sheriff’s sale. The judges couldn’t find an Indiana case with similar facts, so it turned to the Colorado appellate court decision Van Egmond v. Horsman, 10 P.3d 715 (Colo. App. 2000). Just as in the instant case, those parties agreed that the real and personal property used to secure a promissory note would be sold at a sheriff’s sale, but only the real property was every listed. The highest bidder, Van Egmond, argued that the personal property subject to the settlement agreement was sold as part of the sheriff’s sale, but the Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed because no notice of sale was given with respect to the personal property.

“The Surrisis knew their personal property could be subject to a sheriff’s sale, but the notice of this sale listed only the real property. Nothing in the settlement agreement requires that the real and personal property be sold at the same sale, so a person reading the Notice, even one aware of the Agreed Judgment, would presume that only the real property was to be sold,” wrote Judge Melissa May.

The COA remanded for the vacation of the portion of the court order indicating that the sheriff’s sale included the business personal property. The COA told the court to determine the amount of compensation due to the Surrisis for the loss of their business personal property since Bremner had sold the restaurant and business personal property to a third party.
 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT