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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.