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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT