Alan Patrick McEntee v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
970 N.E.2d 178
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- McEntee, pro se, challenges Wells Fargo's foreclosure after loan default dispute arising from misapplied or disputed payments and overdraft fees.
- Mortgage note required monthly payments of $467.43; Wells Fargo became loan servicer prior to the events.
- McEntee's payments included postdated and disputed amounts; Wells Fargo deposited postdated checks and charged overdraft fees.
- USB Home Lending assigned the loan to Wells Fargo on April 27, 2010; Wells Fargo filed foreclosure May 13, 2010.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo on foreclosure and McEntee's counterclaims on April 26, 2011; denial of motion to correct error followed.
- Appellate panel reversed and remanded, holding Wells Fargo failed to prove McEntee default and that Wells Fargo did not establish absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wells Fargo prove McEntee default for foreclosure? | Wells Fargo asserted McEntee default per note/mortgage. | McEntee denied default, citing misapplied payments and disputes over handling. | No; genuine issues of material fact remained regarding default. |
| Was summary judgment proper on McEntee's counterclaims? | Wells Fargo sought summary judgment on counterclaims. | Wells Fargo did not present evidence addressing counterclaims; material facts disputed. | No; entry on counterclaims was improper. |
| Did the trial court properly apply summary-judgment standards? | Wells Fargo satisfied burden with designated evidence. | Evidence did not establish absence of genuine issues; materials included conclusory statements. | No; the moving party failed to carry initial burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Creech v. LaPorte Prod. Credit Ass’n, 419 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (need to prove prima facie case with note and mortgage; burden shifts)
- LaCava v. LaCava, 907 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (conclusory statements disregarded in summary judgment)
- Paramo v. Edwards, 563 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. 1990) (summary judgment burdens; evidentiary standards)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing summary judgment on appeal)
- Town of Plainfield v. Paden Eng’g Co., 943 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (presumption of validity of summary judgment; burden on challenger)
- Haire v. Parker, 957 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (careful review of summary judgment decisions)
- Reiswe rg v. Statom, 926 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. 2010) (respondent entitled to treat motion as framed; evidentiary framing)
- Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Ind., Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994) (summary-judgment burden allocation; Celotex not adopted in Indiana)