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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT