ILNews

Supreme Court divided on whether man's claims against bank can proceed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indiana justices believed that a man’s actual fraud and tortious interference with contract claims against Old National Bank should go to trial, an opposite conclusion reached by their fellow justices.

Justices Frank Sullivan, Mark Massa and Steven David – who authored the majority opinion – found there wasn’t sufficient evidence presented by James Purcell to withstand a motion for judgment on the evidence by the bank on his claims of fraud, deception, and tortious interference with a contract.

Purcell had a security interest in Midwest Fulfillment, a company he established in 1998, that required if the company’s assets-to-liabilities ratio fell below a certain level for three consecutive months, Midwest Fulfillment would be in default and Purcell would gain 100 percent ownership of the company. He previously had sold his majority interest in the company.

Midwest got a line of credit from Old National Bank, which required Purcell to sign a subordination agreement making his security interest in the assets subordinate to Old National’s interest. Both Purcell and Old National received monthly financial statements from the company. A couple of years later, the company went out of business and Old National liquidated the assets.

Purcell sued Midwest, and during interrogation of Joseph Stein, a majority owner of the company, Stein testified as though an employee of Old National instructed Stein to make adjustments to the company’s balance sheets. These adjustments kept the company above the threshold ratio. Purcell then sued Old National for negligence, constructive fraud, actual fraud, deception and tortious interference with a contract. At this trial, Stein’s interrogatory answer was entered as proof that the bank employee instructed Stein to knowingly make false statements. Both the bank employee and Stein denied that the balance sheets were falsified at the bank’s direction.

The trial court granted Old National’s motion for judgment on the evidence on all claims, finding the bank owed no duty to Purcell. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed with respect to the fraud, deception, and tortious interference with a contract claims.

The majority affirmed the trial court, finding Purcell didn’t produce sufficient evidence to withstand the motion for judgment on the evidence on the claims of fraud, deception, and tortuous interference.

Justice Robert Rucker and Chief Justice Brent Dickson dissented regarding these claims because the majority affirmed the lower court on grounds the trial court didn’t reach, Rucker wrote. Also, the conflicting inferences from the evidence before the jury on Stein’s testimony precluded judgment on the evidence on these two claims.

The justices did all agree with the lower court’s judgment on the evidence regarding Purcell’s claims of negligence and constructive fraud. Purcell’s relationship with the bank as a subordinate creditor didn’t give rise to a duty of care required to prove these claims. They also affirmed the denial of attorney fees for Old National.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • link
    The link is in there - the word "sued" was hyperlinked. I've hopefully made the link more obvious.
  • Case links
    Are you no longer linking the actual cases to your articles? Did I miss something?

    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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

    2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

    3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

    4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

    5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

    ADVERTISEMENT