2513-2515 S. Holt Rd. Holdings, LLC v. Holt Rd., LLC
Decision Date | 08 July 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 49A02–1407–MF–525.,49A02–1407–MF–525. |
Citation | 40 N.E.3d 859 |
Parties | 2513–2515 SOUTH HOLT ROAD HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant–Plaintiff, v. HOLT ROAD, LLC, Res Holt Road, LLC, MSP Holt Road, LLC, K3D Holt Road, LLC, and Roll & Hold Warehousing & Distribution Corp., Appellees–Defendants. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jeffrey C. Gerish, Plunkett Cooney, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Pamela A. Paige, J. Dustin Smith, Plunkett Cooney, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Michael J. Lewinski, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellees.
[1] 2513–2515 South Holt Road Holdings, LLC (“Lender”) appeals the trial court's Final Judgment Regarding Tax Refunds in favor of Holt Road, LLC, Res Holt Road, LLC, MSP Holt Road, LLC, K3D Holt Road, LLC, and Roll & Hold Warehousing & Distribution Corp. (collectively, “Borrowers”). Lender raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the court erred in ruling that the Lender is not entitled to recover certain property tax refunds received by Borrowers. We reverse and remand.1
[2] Borrowers were the record owners of real property located in Marion County commonly known as 2513–2515 South Holt Road, Indianapolis, Indiana (the “Real Estate”). On December 21, 2006, Borrowers executed and delivered to Wachovia Bank, National Association (“Wachovia”) a certain Promissory Note in the original principal amount of $5,094,240, which was amended by an Amendment to Promissory Note dated May 25, 2010 (collectively, the “Note”). In connection with the execution of the Note, Borrowers executed a Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing dated December 21, 2006, and recorded January 3, 2007, and an Amendment to Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing dated May 25, 2010, and recorded June 1, 2010 (collectively, the “Mortgage”). In addition, other documents related to the loan were executed including: (A) an Assignment of Leases and Rents dated December 21, 2006, and recorded January 3, 2007; (B) a Lockbox Account and Security Agreement dated December 10, 2009; (C) a Cash Management Agreement dated December 10, 2009, which was amended by an Amendment to Cash Management Agreement dated May 25, 2010; and (D) an Amendment to Loan Documents dated May 25, 2010 (the Note, Mortgage, and documents listed in (A)-(D) collectively, the “Loan Documents”). Wachovia's rights and interest in and by the Loan Documents were ultimately assigned to Lender through various assignments.
[3] Borrowers defaulted under the terms of the Note by failing to make payments beginning in May 2013, and no loan payment has been made since April 2013. As of July 2013, there was due and owing to Lender under the Loan Documents the principal amount of $5,013,663.00, plus $70,464.25 in interest, $28,410.57 in default interest, $4,496.48 in late charges, $840.62 in property protective advances, $859,532.26 in prepayment premiums, $345.00 in administrative fees, and $5,414.37 in legal fees, less a combined escrow offset of $247,181.76. Thus, the total due was $5,735,984.79, plus interest at the default rate of 12.06 percent per annum accruing from and after July 1, 2013.
[4] The loan evidenced by the Note is a limited recourse loan and specifically provides in § 3.6, titled “Exculpation,” as follows:
Appellant's Appendix at 40–41. The Mortgage contains a number of categories of “Property” that secure the loan listed as Paragraphs (A)-(P) and specifically includes the following:
[5] On July 12, 2013, Lender filed its Complaint For Judgment and Foreclosure of Commercial Mortgage and Security Interest against Borrowers.3 Borrowers acknowledged that default had occurred and cooperated with Lender in having a receiver appointed over the Real Estate in October 2013, and on January 24, 2014, the court issued a Consent Order Granting In Rem Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure of the Real Estate (the “Foreclosure Decree”). In the Foreclosure Decree, the court specifically found:
[6] Meanwhile, in November 2013, while the foreclosure proceedings were pending, Borrowers notified Lender that they had obtained $307,193.76 from the Marion County Treasurer as a refund from an appeal of real estate taxes relating to tax years 2008–2011 (the “Tax Refunds”).4 The parties disputed whether the Tax Refunds should be distributed to Borrowers or Lender, Borrowers deposited said Tax Refunds into an escrow account with the court, and on December 9, 2013, the parties filed briefs on the issue. On May 14, 2014, the court held a hearing on the issue and heard argument, and at the conclusion of the hearing it asked the parties to submit proposed orders. On July 3, 2014, the court issued its Final Judgment Regarding Tax Refunds (the “Final Judgment”) in which it concluded that the Tax Refunds should be retained by Borrowers. The Final Judgment stated in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SGS N. Am., Inc. v. Mullholand
...2016). This Court owes no deference to the trial court's determination of questions of law. 2513-2515 S. Holt Rd. Holdings, LLC v. Holt Rd., LLC , 40 N.E.3d 859, 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Similarly, we review de novo a trial court's grant or denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to stat......
-
2513 S. Holt Rd. Holdings, LLC v. Holt Rd., LLC, 49S02–1510–MF–00630.
...it should not assume jurisdiction over this appeal and that the Court of Appeals decision, 2513–2515 South Holt Road Holdings, LLC v. Holt Road, LLC, et al., 40 N.E.3d 859 (Ind.Ct.App.2015), should be reinstated as Court of Appeals precedent.Accordingly, the order granting transfer is VACAT......