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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT