ILNews

Man will receive surplus on sheriff’s sale credit bid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals awarded a Grant County man nearly $375 after finding a surplus was owed to him when his property sold at a sheriff’s sale for more than what was calculated by the trial court based on an agreed judgment between the man and the bank.

JPMorgan Chase Bank filed a complaint to foreclose on Joel Stoffel’s property. In 2012, the two filed an agreed judgment entry and decree of foreclosure, outlining how much a personal judgment against Stoffel would be. The agreement came to a total of $139,907.82 plus any additional costs related to the sheriff’s sale.

Chase assigned the agreed judgment to the Federal National Mortgage Association, which submitted the winning bid at the sheriff’s sale of $152,121.72, through a credit bid. A credit bid is made by the judgment creditor in which no money is exchanged. Shortly thereafter, Fannie Mae filed its satisfaction and release of judgment with the trial court.

Stoffel filed a complaint seeking payment of an alleged surplus balance based on the difference between the credit bid and the $139,907.28 face amount of the agreed judgment. The trial court denied his motion and, based on its math, ruled there was no surplus.

In Joel Stoffel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association, 27A02-1303-MF-299, the Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding there to be a $374.58 surplus after calculating the principal, post-judgment interest, real estate taxes and sheriff’s sale expenses. It came to this amount by excluding some evidence the trial court had admitted that was inadmissible. The court ordered a judgment in favor of Stoffel for this amount.

The COA affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Stoffel’s argument that Fannie Mae’s satisfaction of judgment prohibited it from introducing evidence to show the correct amount of the agreed judgment. The agreed judgment left certain costs to be determined, and Fannie Mae’s satisfaction of judgment did not preclude the presentation of admissible evidence to demonstrate those costs and rebut Stoffel’s allegation that a surplus existed.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT