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

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