Cynthia L. Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 573
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Chase filed a foreclosure complaint on January 13, 2010 against Seleme for residential real property in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
- Chase obtained a September 26, 2011 default judgment and foreclosure decree after Seleme failed to appear or defend.
- Seleme later filed a verified motion for relief from judgment on March 5, 2012, asserting lack of notice and reliance on a forbearance/for modification efforts.
- The record includes a Home Affordable Modification Program letter (April 14, 2010) and subsequent Chase notices indicating modification denial and possible resumption of foreclosure if in foreclosure.
- A court hearing on April 10, 2012 denied Seleme’s motion for relief from judgment, prompting this appeal.
- Issue centers on whether the default judgment can be set aside under Trial Rule 60(B) for alleged notice defects or fraud, and whether Seleme had a meritorious defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment was void for lack of notice | Seleme failed to show a proper appearance or notice under TR 55 and related rules. | Seleme claims due process was violated due to lack of notice of default and sale. | No reversible error; notice issues did not render the judgment void. |
| Whether Trial Rule 60(B)(1) or (3) supports relief for alleged fraud or excusable neglect | Chase argues no meritorious defense or excusable neglect shown by Seleme. | Seleme contends Chase misled her and caused excusable neglect; she provided modification-related correspondence. | Court did not abuse discretion; no meritorious defense established. |
| Whether subdivision (7) of Rule 60(B) (accord and satisfaction/no longer equitable) supports relief | Chase asserts no satisfaction or vacatur of underlying judgment; payments did not satisfy terms. | Seleme argues there was accord/for modification; evidence of payments and forbearance undermines foreclosure. | Not established; no accord or satisfaction proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 747 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. 2001) (default judgments disfavored; review for abuse of discretion)
- Coslett v. Weddle Bros. Constr. Co. Inc., 798 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (cases balanced between efficiency and merits; default judgments disfavored)
- In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (Rule 60(B) standards and meritorious defense requirement)
- Kmart v. Englebright, 719 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (meritorious defense requiring potential different outcome if tried on merits)
- Elliott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 920 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (accord/settlement-related implications in mortgage foreclosures)
- Rickels v. Herr, 638 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (pro se litigants bound by procedural rules)
- LaPalme v. Romero, 606 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (telephone conference does not automatically constitute appearance)