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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT