Riviera Plaza Investments, LLC and Haresh Shah v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
10 N.E.3d 541
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Riviera Plaza Investments, LLC and Haresh Shah executed a fixed-rate note to Citibank for $2,925,000, secured by a Mortgage on Riviera’s real estate and a Guaranty by Shah.
- Citibank later assigned the Note and Mortgage to Nova, which then assigned to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Riviera defaulted on the Note, triggering foreclosure and Wells Fargo’s pursuit of the loan.
- Nova substituted as plaintiff; Wells Fargo later substituted as plaintiff by assignment from Nova; Shah was added as a defendant based on the Guaranty.
- The trial court granted Wells Fargo summary judgment against Riviera and entered judgment against Shah; foreclosure followed.
- Appellants appeal contending improper assignment, improper recovery, material alteration affecting Shah’s Guaranty, and inappropriate interest award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valid assignment to Wells Fargo | Wells Fargo held a valid assignment from Citibank through Nova to Wells Fargo | Riviera/Shah argued no proper proof of assignment or chain of title | Assignment to Wells Fargo was valid; no material fact issue on chain of title |
| Wells Fargo’s entitlement to recover | Riviera defaulted; Wells Fargo entitled to amounts due under Note | No proof of Riviera’s default or accurate amount due | Wells Fargo entitled to recover amounts due as of record evidence |
| Guaranty material alteration | Assignment of Loan Documents does not alter principal obligation; Guaranty follows Note | Assignment could be material alteration releasing Shah | Assignment did not constitute a material alteration releasing Shah under the Guaranty |
| Award of interest | Interest calculated according to terms of Note; permissible | Interest assessment improper due to alleged inconsistent charging | Court-approved award of interest to Wells Fargo |
Key Cases Cited
- S-Mart, Inc. v. Sweetwater Coffee Co., Ltd., 744 N.E.2d 580 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (guaranty discharge rules and alterations principles cited)
- Goeke v. Merchants Nat Bank & Trust Co. of Indpls., 467 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (material alteration effects on guaranty)
- Cunningham v. Mid State Bank, 544 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (material alteration and guaranty concepts)
- Houin v. Bremen State Bank, 495 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (guaranty and assignment principles)
- Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. 2004) (standard for witness testimony and evidentiary review)
- Best Homes, Inc. v. Rainwater, 714 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (summary judgment standards and burden of proof)