Alaska Seaboard Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Hood
949 N.E.2d 1247
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hood's Avon, Indiana real estate mortgage originated with Wilmington Finance and passed through MorEquity to Saint Ivan Equity Management, then to SNGC and later to MERS for SNGC's benefit.
- Saint Ivan assigned the Hood mortgage to MERS in July 2007; MERS later assigned to Alaska Seaboard in July 2009; the Hood mortgage assignment to Hendricks County Bank occurred September 2007, before MERS recorded its assignment.
- Hendricks County Bank paid Saint Ivan $107,600 and released/recorded the Hood mortgage; Hendricks County Bank and the Hood deed in lieu were recorded on October 24, 2007.
- SNGC sued Saint Ivan in California, seeking damages for misallocation of the Hood mortgage and related issues; SNGC obtained a $430,000 stipulated judgment against Saint Ivan in 2009, including damages for the Hood mortgage payoff.
- Alaska Seaboard, related to SNGC, later filed Indiana foreclosure action on the Hood mortgage seeking to foreclose; Hendricks County Bank, the McDonalds, and the Boutots moved for summary judgment and prevailed.
- The trial court awarded attorney's fees to Hendricks County Bank and the others; Alaska Seaboard appeals the summary judgment rulings and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does collateral estoppel bar Alaska Seaboard's foreclosure action? | Seaboard argues issue not resolved in prior suit due to reservation of rights. | SNGC had a full and fair opportunity; judgment reflected damages from Saint Ivan's assignment. | Yes; foreclosure barred by collateral estoppel. |
| Does judicial estoppel bar Alaska Seaboard's foreclosure action? | SNGC's filings showed multiple theories and no clear winner; inconsistent positions allowed. | SNGC alleged its interest extinguished; Alaska Seaboard adopts opposite position post-settlement. | Yes; foreclosure barred by judicial estoppel. |
| Was the attorney's fees award proper? | Seaboard challenges the basis for fees under §34-52-1-1. | Fees were warranted due to unreasonable/groundless action given prior judgment. | Yes; award affirmable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitz v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 883 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (collateral estoppel requirements; fully and fairly litigated issue)
- SNGC v. Saint Ivan (implied related discussion), 430 N.E.2d ??? (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (cited as basis for collateral estoppel analysis in this opinion)
- S & B Constr., LLC v. Old Fort, LLC, 826 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (judicial estoppel principles; bad-faith not required for all inconsistency)
- Robson v. Tex. E. Corp., 833 N.E.2d 461 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (judicial estoppel; intentional misrepresentation standard)
- Wells Fargo Ins., Inc. v. Land, 932 N.E.2d 195 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (consistency of pleadings; limits on contradictory theories)
- Estate of Collins v. McKinney, 936 N.E.2d 252 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (award of attorney's fees framework; abuse of discretion review)