ILNews

Judges order proceedings on guarantors’ liability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a dispute between a company and its mortgage holder regarding how money received from the city of Lawrenceburg as part of a settlement should be applied to the mortgage.

JPMCC held the mortgage on property used by DBL Axel. In 2009, the city and DBL entered into a settlement agreement in which the city agreed to pay DBL to acquire a portion of the property, including a condemnation award of $224,600. DBL filed a complaint against JPMCC requesting a declaratory judgment as to how that money would be applied to its mortgage.

JPMCC learned of the $1,725,600 nuisance award DBL received and filed a 10-count counterclaim against DBL and the loan guarantors. Dearborn Superior Judge Jonathan Cleary ruled in favor of JPMCC on JPMCC’s breach of contract claims; entered judgment for DBL on JPMCC’s tort claims; judgment for the guarantors and against JPMCC on its breach of guaranty claims; and judgment against JPMCC on its request for summary judgment on DBL’s complaint for declaratory judgment.  

The Court of Appeals ruled that JPMCC met its burden of showing that it was entitled to summary judgment on DBL’s complaint for declaratory judgment, and DBL made no showing that a genuine issue of material fact precludes such judgment. Thus, the trial court erred when it denied JPMCC’s motion for summary judgment on DBL’s complaint for declaratory judgment, Judge Edward Najam wrote. The judges reversed and directed the court to enter final judgment for JPMCC on DBL’s complaint.

They also found JPMCC’s designated evidence failed to establish a genuine question of material fact on whether the tort claims were independent of the breach of contract claims. They were not, but even if they were, JPMCC would have no greater remedy against DBL than that which it has already received, Najam continued. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to DBL and against JMPCC on the tort claims.

Finally, the Court of Appeals held that DBL misapplied the first two installments of the nuisance award, which is a condemnation award as a matter of law. DBL disbursed the first two installments to its members, attorneys and another company. It deposited the third installment with the trial court. Pursuant to the plain terms of the guaranty, the guarantors are liable to JPMCC for its losses arising out of DBL’s misapplication of those amounts.

The case goes back to Dearborn Superior Court to determine the amount of the guarantors’ liability to JPMCC.

 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT