CFS, LLC and Charles Blackwelder v. Bank of America, Successor in Interest to LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association
962 N.E.2d 151
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- CFS executed a promissory note and construction mortgage with LaSalle for $982,500, secured by multiple guarantees including Charles Blackwelder.
- Bank of America, as successor to LaSalle, filed a foreclosure complaint against CFS and the guarantor for loan default on August 24, 2009.
- CFS admitted signatures, promise to pay, and principal balance in its answer but contested Bank’s claim of successor status.
- Bank moved for summary judgment on April 19, 2010; CFS sought late response but withdrew after bench conference.
- Trial court held a hearing December 13, 2010 and later denied summary judgment on January 19, 2011, citing lack of controlling case law.
- Bank moved to correct error on February 18, 2011, cited a merger statute; trial court granted correction and entered foreclosure decree on April 18, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bank was entitled to enforce the LaSalle loan as successor after merger | CFS contends Bank failed to prove ownership and successor status, and relied on absence of controlling case law; challenge to new-evidence considerations. | Bank asserts 12 U.S.C. § 215a(e) transfers rights to the surviving entity, making Bank the holder entitled to enforce the loan; evidence of successor in interest supports summary judgment. | Yes; Bank established entitlement to enforce as successor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (response to summary judgment does not bar argument on appeal)
- Yates v. Johnson County Bd. of Comm’rs., 888 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (summary judgment standard and deference to movant's burden)
- Landmark Health Care Assocs. L.P. – 1989-A v. Bradbury, 671 N.E.2d 113 (Ind. 1996) (standard for reviewing summary judgment on appeal)
- Otto v. Park Garden Assocs., 612 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (burden-shifting framework in summary judgment)
- Winbush v. Memorial Health System, Inc., 581 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. 1991) (facts in complaint treated as true unless negated by evidence)
- AutoXchange.com, Inc. v. Dreyer and Reinbold, Inc., 816 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (can only reverse on designated material facts)
- Desai v. Croy, 805 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (timing and discretion in granting relief under Rule 56)