ILNews

Kentucky ruling prevents Indiana court from addressing claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because the principles of full faith and credit required a Clark Circuit court to consider the judgments of a Kentucky court involving the default of promissory notes on property in Kentucky and Indiana, there was no error by the Indiana court in granting a bank the right to foreclose.

Robert and Beverly Setree obtained three promissory notes from River City Bank, which were secured by mortgages on real estate they owned in Jeffersonville, Ind., and Louisville, Ky. The Setrees failed to pay Indiana real estate taxes on a property, bringing them in default of the terms of a 2007 note. By not paying the taxes on the property, it triggered River City’s right to accelerate all debts due and owed under the other notes and foreclose on all the mortgages it held on the Setrees’ various properties.

Two actions were started in Clark Circuit Court and two in Jefferson Circuit Court in Kentucky. The Kentucky court entered a final judgment and ordered the sale of two Kentucky properties.

At issue in this case is the Clark Circuit Court grant of River City’s motion for summary judgment to foreclose on an Indiana property entered after the Kentucky court ruled. The Indiana court ruled that res judicata prevented the relitigation of the Setrees’ default on the 2007 note and mortgage.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the Kentucky judgments had acquired subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties before it, so it must afford full faith and credit to those opinions.

In the instant case, res judicata is more properly defined as issue preclusion, Judge Patricia Riley wrote in Robert R. Setree, II, and Beverly L. Setree v. River City Bank, 10A01-1311-MF-485.  

“The same issues—the Setrees’ failure to pay Indiana property tax pursuant to their 2007 Note and their right to cure—between the same parties—the Setrees and River City—governed the Kentucky cases and this appeal. River City’s right to foreclose on all three notes was triggered as a result of the Setrees’ failure to pay their Indiana taxes on the Cardinal Lane Property,” she wrote.

“Because of cross-default provisions in the three notes executed between the Setrees and River City, the Setrees’ default under the 2007 Note constituted a default under the previously executed two notes as well. Therefore, the Kentucky courts’ decisions to grant River City the right to foreclose on the Setrees’ Kentucky properties necessarily included a determination of default under the 2007 Note—the issue before the trial court,” she continued.

“Although the Kentucky cases concerned different mortgages and different property than the instant cause, they litigated the same issues between the same parties: the Setrees’ failure to pay the Indiana taxes on the Cardinal Lane Property and the Setrees’ right to cure its failure under the 2007 Note. Therefore, granting the Kentucky judgments full faith and credit, we are precluded from addressing the Setrees’ claim.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Did ky rule on IN contract?
    Did Indiana legislature expect a KY court to remove the contractal requiremnt of INdiana MOrtgages to contain notice and right to cure? INside the KY cases is the pleading saying KY requires no Notice of default. The KY court made no determination of the Indiana Notice and right to cure.
  • What did the KY court decide
    RCB testified it sent no notice and no right to cure in either state. Ky lawyers wrote briefs for the KY commissioner about the Indiana Mortgage. The KY court determined the quietus money to be unsecured debt. Both KY courts refused to pay the quietus money out of the proceeds of the land sale. RCB never testified that all conditions precendent were met. The court ignored the payments accepted by RCB after the foreclosure was filed. RCB business records showed no payments late. I can tell you RCB intend to add the quietus to the back of the loan. Proved by email and blue ink signature. This is not simple foreclosure, the bank has unclean hands. The Judge accepted that a letter written by the Setree's more than 10 days after the foreclosure was filed was Notice from RCB, and rejected the Setree claim that their knowledge and their hand can not be Notice. From what you read here res judicata is being used because the normal facts in a foreclosure will not let the bank win. I am represented. We would like to hear your detailed comments. Bob Setree

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT