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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT