ILNews

Justices: Agreement was impermissibly modified

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A LaPorte Superior judge made an impermissible modification to a divorced couple's settlement agreement by giving the bank's lien on the family farm priority over the ex-wife's lien, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

In their dissolution agreement, Robert Johnson agreed to pay Gina Johnson her interest in a family farm through a series of lump sums and installment payments until 2013. To operate the farm, Robert would take out a loan at the bank every April 15 to finance seasonal expenses, which is repaid after fall harvest. The line of credit is secured by an all-assets security agreement that is cross-collateralized with all other collateral with the bank as well as personal guarantees from the farm's owners. The bank requires first position on all assets securing the farm's debt.

The bank required Robert to get an agreement from Gina ensuring her interests in the farm wouldn't subordinate its own. Gina refused so Robert sought a declaratory order subordinating her lien, which the trial court granted.

The Supreme Court reversed in Gina Johnson v. Robert Johnson, No. 46S04-0907-CV-346. At issue is whether Gina agreed to waive her priority on lines of credit entered into after the settlement only up to the amount taken out for the farm's operations in the past or whether she waived her priority without limit. Robert attempted to take out money to cover the farm expenses as well as covering the payments he needed to make to Gina.

The agreement is silent on this issue, but the Supreme Court found the agreement undeniably assumes for the farm's continued operation in the manner Gina had grown accustomed, which requires renewing the lines of credit at issue in the case.

But the funds for Robert to pay Gina aren't implied as necessary to the agreement. Gina may have impliedly agreed to a subordinate position when it comes to the continuing operating expenses of the farm, but she wouldn't have assented to Robert taking on a large amount of debt to finance his payments to her. That would offer her little protection if he defaulted, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

"An order declaring Gina's judgment lien subordinate to the lien securing the annual line of credit would not constitute a modification but an enforcement because it implies the continued financing of the farm's operations," he wrote. "Conversely, an order subordinating her lien to the bank's for amounts over and above such an amount would constitute an impermissible modification."

The justices also noted that if Robert's declarations about the state of his finances are accurate, he may have trouble repaying Gina without financing higher debt on the farm. The justices suggested they negotiate an agreement allowing Robert to meet his obligations and encouraged them to avoid further litigation on the issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT