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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

    2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

    3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

    4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

    5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

    ADVERTISEMENT