ILNews

Mortgage company didn't act in good faith

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that a mortgage company shouldn't have been treated as a bona fide purchaser because it didn't act in good faith in providing a mortgage that was obtained by fraud.

In Richard Thomas, et al. v. Benjamin H. Thomas, No. 45A05-0906-CV-357, Trustcorp Mortgage Co. challenged the trial court's ruling that the mortgage it holds on Benjamin Thomas' home is invalid.

Benjamin remained in possession of his home that he owned since 1965, but his home was conveyed to his son Richard by a quit claim deed. After a family dispute, Benjamin asked Richard to convey the title back to him as agreed, but he refused. Benjamin filed notice of intention to hold a mechanic's lien for $200,000 on the home and filed a quiet title suit against his son. He didn't file a lis pendens notice at any point.

Richard then got an $118,000 mortgage on the home from Trustcorp by submitting a fraudulent loan application that included a purported release of the mechanic's lien. Richard never made any payments and filed for bankruptcy.

Benjamin received the title back via a mediated settlement and executed a release of the mechanic's lien to Trustcorp after the trial court issued partial summary judgment to the mortgage company on the lien's validity. Trustcorp conveyed the right to collect the mortgage loan to Fannie Mae and the servicing rights to EverBank.

The trial court then entered summary judgment for Benjamin in his suit, ruling the mortgage was invalid because it was a product of fraud. It also concluded despite Benjamin's failure to file a lis pendens, Trustcorp had constructive notice of his claims due to his pending litigation with Richard and the irregularities in the mechanic's lien release submitted with the loan application.

The trial court didn't err in finding Trustcorp's mortgage was invalid on the basis that the company wasn't a bona fide mortgagee. The record supports Trustcorp didn't act in good faith and can be imputed with notice of Richard's fraud and Benjamin's lawsuit, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.

"Quite simply, it is undisputed that Benjamin was in possession of the property in question and that Trustcorp nonetheless did nothing to ascertain his rights to it," he wrote. "It is apparent that even a cursory investigation would have quickly uncovered both Richard's fraud and Benjamin's claims on the home."

In addition, the irregularities in the forged mechanic's lien release should have put a reasonably prudent person on notice that something was amiss, the judge continued.

Although Trustcorp couldn't have had constructive notice because Benjamin failed to file the lis pendens, the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of inquiry notice. Richard was the only person present when the lien was notarized, even though Benjamin supposedly signed it. Second, the lien had an incorrect number and Trustcorp had the means to verify it.

The same evidence supports the finding the mortgage was obtained by fraud, rendering it invalid, the appellate court concluded.

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. 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