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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT