ILNews

Panel disagrees on foreclosure settlement resolution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that federal law and housing regulations require that deeds in lieu of foreclosure release the borrower from any mortgage obligation, and the mortgage company issuing an agreement can use that federal language in the contract.

Ronald Dyer and his wife entered an FHA-secured mortgage loan in 2008 for their home in Greene County, but after she died the husband defaulted on the loan now assigned to GMAC Mortgage. The company foreclosed, but they agreed to settle and decided to proceed with a deed in lieu of foreclosure. GMAC drafted a written agreement that included a provision using language required by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development that neither would pursue a deficiency judgment. Dyer didn’t feel it provided enough protection, and he refused to sign until a new agreement provided that he was released from all personal liability.

The trial court agreed with Dyer and ordered the contract be rewritten, but a two-judge Court of Appeal majority struck down that decision In GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ronald Glenn Dyer, No. 28A04-1107-MF-404.

Reviewing federal statute and HUD regulations, the appellate court found the language GMAC used was sufficient and protected Dyer. The state appellate panel disagreed with Dyer’s reliance on a single court opinion from Maryland in 1999 that found the “shall not be pursued for deficiency judgments” language not protective enough because HUD could still intercept future tax refunds pursuant to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984.

The panel found that precedent doesn’t control here because it was written before the current statute and doesn’t apply to the facts in this case. Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote the opinion and Judge Edward Najam concurred.

Chief Judge Margret Robb concurred with the majority’s determination that a deed in lieu of foreclosure releases a borrower from any obligation under a mortgage. But she dissented with the specific resolution in this case, seeing no harm in including Dyer’s requested provision and saying she would affirm the trial court’s order requiring the agreement revision.

“If a deed in lieu of foreclosure does in fact release a mortgagor from personal liability and if everyone agrees Dyer should be released from personal liability, the requested provision would only clarify this reality,” she wrote. “HUD regulations do not prohibit parties adding language in addition to what is required, and Dyer is not attempting to remove a provision required by HUD.”

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT