Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 950 N.E.2d 12

Barabas executed a $154,111 mortgage on the Property with MERS as mortgagee nominee for Irwin Mortgage in 2005; notice provision directed notices to the lender's address (Irwin Mortgage).
ReCasa foreclosed the Madison County Property in 2008 and purchased it at a 2009 judicial sale, later transferring it to Sanders in March 2009.
MERS assigned Barabas’s MERS mortgage to Citi after the sale, and Citi filed to intervene and seek relief from the amended default judgment in October 2009.
The trial court vacated ReCasa’s amended default judgment as to Citi’s interest, then later vacated that ruling; Citi sought relief from judgment again in 2009.
Indiana Code § 32-29-8-3 provides one-year redemption by assignees after a judicial sale, which Citi argued applied to preclude its claim.
The trial court ultimately held Citi’s claim was precluded under § 32-29-8-3, and Citi appealed, urging MERS had enforceable rights and notice against ReCasa.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion not to set aside the amended default judgment	Citi argues judgment should be vacated due to MERS’s rights and notice issues.	ReCasa/Sanders contend the judgment is valid and Citi is barred by redemption statute.	No abuse; court properly declined to vacate.
Whether I.C. § 32-29-8-3 precludes Citi's claim	Citi asserts redemption period tolls Citi's rights and precludes foreclosure claim.	ReCasa argues Citi failed to redeem within one year and is barred.	Precluded; Citi waited beyond the one-year window after sale.
Whether MERS had an enforceable right under the mortgage and notice adequacy	Citi relies on MERS as nominee; argues notice to lender suffices and MERS had rights.	ReCasa argues MERS was a nominal holder with no independent rights; notice to Irwin suffices.	MERS had no independent enforceable right; notice to lender sufficed; judgment affirmed.

Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158 (Kan. 2009) (MERS as nominee; notice and joinder issues in foreclosure; persuasive beyond binding precedent)