ILNews

Lawyer failed to deny note execution under oath

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because an attorney acting pro se in a mortgage suit didn't include a statement in his general denial that the denial was truthful and made under penalty for perjury, he failed to deny under oath the execution of the note, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Brian B. Baldwin v. Tippecanoe Land & Cattle Co., No. 55A01-0902-CV-52, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Tippecanoe Land & Cattle Co. in its claim to foreclose its second mortgage held by Baldwin.

Tippecanoe submitted the secured installment promissory note that was not signed, and a real estate second mortgage that appeared to be signed by Baldwin. Baldwin filed a one-sentence answer entering a general denial. His answer was signed and listed his attorney number, but didn't contain an oath.

The day before the hearing, Baldwin filed a verified response arguing the second mortgage was unenforceable because the note wasn't signed nor attached to the second mortgage.

Taken collectively, Indiana Trial Rules 8(B), 9.2(B), and 11(A) mean that an attorney's signature on a general denial rejects the assertion of the claim, but doesn't constitute an oath by which the pleader denies the execution of an instrument attached to a claim, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. Execution of the note and second mortgage would be deemed established under Indiana Trial Rule 9.2(B) unless Baldwin denied under oath that they were executed.

He didn't include a statement that his general denial was truthful and made under penalty for perjury, so he failed to deny under oath the execution of the note, she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT