Finucane v. Union Planters Bank, NA, 29A02-9912-CV-856.
| Citation | 732 N.E.2d 175 |
| Case Date | June 29, 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
732 N.E.2d 175
Stuart FINUCANE, Appellant-Intervenor,v.
UNION PLANTERS BANK, N.A., Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 29A02-9912-CV-856.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
June 29, 2000.
James P. Moloy, Dann Pecar Newman & Kleiman, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
OPINION
NAJAM, Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hamilton Proper North, LLC purchased certain real estate from Gary Secrest. The same real estate was subsequently sold at a sheriff's sale to Stuart Finucane to satisfy a judgment and decree of foreclosure in favor of Union Planters Bank, N.A. (the "Bank") and against Secrest. Finucane now appeals, challenging the trial court's judgment vacating the sheriff's sale and setting aside the sheriff's deed.
We affirm.
ISSUES
Finucane presents the following issues for our review, which we restate as:
(1) Whether the trial court erred when it vacated the sheriff's sale and set aside the sheriff's deed.
(2) Whether the trial court erred when it disregarded matters deemed admitted by the Bank under Indiana Trial Rule 36.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 15, 1998, the Bank filed a complaint against Secrest and others to foreclose a mortgage on real estate owned by Secrest in Hamilton County. The trial court entered a personal money judgment against Secrest and in favor of the Bank and a decree foreclosing the Bank's mortgage and directing the Sheriff of Hamilton County to sell the property to satisfy the judgment. The sheriff's sale was scheduled to occur on March 25, 1999.
On March 22, 1999, Secrest sold the real estate to Hamilton Proper North for $150,000.00. The amount of $83,877.49 was escrowed from the closing to satisfy the Bank's foreclosure judgment, and the Bank received proceeds sufficient to pay the judgment on March 24, 1999. Neither counsel for the Bank nor the Hamilton County Sheriff received notice that the judgment had been satisfied until after the sheriff's sale had taken place.
At the sheriff's sale on March 25, 1999, the real estate was sold to Finucane, a realtor, for $91,000.00. A sheriff's deed was issued to Finucane on March 26, 1999 and recorded on March 30, 1999. The
Thereafter, the Bank filed a motion to vacate the sheriff's sale and set aside the sheriff's deed. Its motion alleged that Secrest had "paid the loan balance in full on March 24, 1999, therefore rendering this foreclosure action moot." Record at 71. Finucane filed a motion to intervene objecting to the Bank's motion to vacate the sheriff's sale and set aside the sheriff's deed. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon sua sponte, vacating the sheriff's sale and directing the Clerk of Hamilton County to refund the proceeds tendered by Finucane. Finucane now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Issue One: Sheriff's Sale
Finucane contends that the trial court erred when it vacated the sheriff's sale and set aside the sheriff's deed. In particular, he claims to be an "innocent bona fide purchaser" and urges that his deed, which was recorded first, should be given priority over Hamilton Proper North's warranty deed because "one who is first in time is first in right." Brief of Appellant at 8, 10.
Where, as here, a trial court enters findings sua sponte, those findings control only as to the issues they cover, and a general judgment will control as to the issues upon which there are no findings. See Pitman v. Pitman, 721 N.E.2d 260, 264 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. A general judgment entered with findings will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id.
This court has acknowledged the soundness of the doctrine of bona fide purchaser, but has also recognized that " `[t]he doctrine . . . is purely an equitable one, and should not be extended farther than equitable principles warrant.' " INB Trust No. 337 v. Veljanoski, 593 N.E.2d 1263, 1265 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (citations omitted), trans. denie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Kraft LLC, Bankruptcy No. 07-21367 JPK.
...and when that obligation is discharged the mortgage becomes functus officio and is legally dead. Finucane v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 732 N.E.2d 175, 177 (Ind.App.2000). These two instruments operate under different legal concepts, and flatly stating that the mortgage in this case is akin......
-
Singh v. Lyday, No. 84A05-0709-CV-538.
...which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected."); cf. Finucane v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 732 N.E.2d 175, 178 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (indicating that reversal is not warranted based on exclusion of evidence unless a party's substantial rights were affec......
-
Cain v. Back, 20A03-0705-CV-225.
...new trial unless the exclusion affects the party's substantial rights. Ind. Evidence Rule 103(a); Finucane v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 732 N.E.2d 175, 178 (Ind.Ct. II. Exclusion of Opinion Testimony of Drs. Evangelista and Graber Dr. Cain argues the trial court improperly excluded opinion......
-
State v. Estep, 49A05-0009-CR-371.
...findings will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Finucane v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 732 N.E.2d 175, 177 DISCUSSION AND DECISION Although the trial judge did not issue written findings, she did make the following statement when ruling on the......