Hoosier Plastics v. Westfield Sav. & Loan Ass'n
Decision Date | 23 March 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 2-581,2-581 |
Citation | 433 N.E.2d 24 |
Parties | HOOSIER PLASTICS and/or American Color Packaging Products, presently known as American Color, Inc., Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. WESTFIELD SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION and Floyd A. Carson, Vice-President& Director; Manson E. Church, Director; R. C. Emerich, President & Director; Roy O. Hadley, Secretary & Director; Gerald S. McMullan, Director; Carl Steele, Treasurer & Director; Russell L. Wallace, Director, Appellees (Defendants below). A 178. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Charles S. Gleason, Charles Thomas Gleason, Gleason, Hay & Gleason, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Gary D. Beerbower, Church, Roberts & Beerbower, Noblesville, David J. Theising, Charles W. Linder, Jr., Linder & Taylor, Indianapolis, for appellees.
Appellant American Color Inc. initiated this action against Westfield Savings and Loan Association (Westfield) and Westfield's officers and directors in their individual capacities for breach of a mortgage contract. Following a hearing before the court, American Color's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 12(B)(6). American Color raises the following issues on appeal:
1) Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; and
2) Whether the trial court erred in denying American Color's motion for leave to amend its complaint after its Motion to Correct Errors had been denied.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
American Color and others mortgaged property in Hamilton County to Westfield Savings and Loan Association as security for an obligation evidenced by a $70,000 note. A building situated on the property was destroyed by fire on March 21, 1979. At the time of the fire $61,379.15 remained due on the obligation. Pursuant to the mortgage agreement, American Color had obtained insurance on the mortgaged property. The policy contained a standard mortgage clause making any loss payable to mortgagee Westfield "as interest may appear." It read as follows:
Following the fire, the insurance company issued a draft payable to American Color, Westfield, and another mortgagee not relevant here. The attorney for American Color endorsed the names of his client and the mortgagees on the draft and placed the proceeds in trust. The trust named American Color as settlor and its attorney as trustee. Westfield objected to this action and induced the insurance company to dishonor the draft. Westfield then filed suit against American Color, the insurance company, and the other mortgagee alleging it was entitled to $61,379.15 of the insurance proceeds. The suit was dismissed when the insurance company assented to pay the proceeds to Westfield and the other mortgagee as their interests appeared.
Westfield rejected American Color's request that the insurance proceeds be utilized for restoration of the building and applied the funds to the outstanding mortgage debt. An offer was made by Westfield to negotiate a new construction loan at a higher rate of interest. American Color rejected the offer and this action ensued.
According to the complaint, Westfield breached the mortgage contract when it refused to make the insurance proceeds available for reconstruction of the damaged property. The complaint specifically cites to Uniform Covenant Five (5) of the mortgage agreement which provides:
American Color characterized Westfield's alleged deliberate breach of the agreement and its offer to refinance a new construction loan at a higher interest rate as "tortious conduct." Westfield moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After a hearing before the court the motion was granted.
A complaint may not be dismissed pursuant to T.R. 12(B)(6) unless it appears to a certainty on the face of the complaint that complainant is not entitled to any relief. Parsley v. Waverly Concrete and Gravel Co., (1981) Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 1. In ruling on a T.R. 12(B)(6) motion, the trial court is therefore required to view the complaint in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and with every intendment in his favor. The trial judge may only look at the complaint and well pleaded material must be taken as admitted. Anderson v. Anderson, (1979) Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 391.
Where, as in the present case, the mortgage agreement requires that the insurance policy contain a standard mortgage clause making any loss payable to the mortgagee "as interest may appear," the mortgagee is generally entitled to the proceeds of the policy to the extent of his mortgage debt holding the surplus for the mortgagor's benefit. Pearson v. First National Bank of Martinsville, (1980) Ind.App., 408 N.E.2d 166. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 3401. In reality the parties to the mortgage agreement have effected a "pre appropriation" of the proceeds to payment of the mortgage debt. It is intended the insurance proceeds will stand in place...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilhoite v. Melvin Simon & Associates, Inc.
... ... (1991) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 567 N.E.2d 828; Hoosier Plastics v. Westfield Sav. & Loan Ass'n (1982) 2d ... ...
-
Near East Side Community Organization v. Hair
... ... Hoosier Plastics v. Westfield Savings & Loan Association ... ...
-
Loving v. Ponderosa Systems, Inc.
... ... Bank to further secure the mortgage loan; ... (2) That the mortgage ... denied. See also Hoosier Plastics v. Westfield Savings & Loan, (1982) ... ...
-
Brenneman Mechanical & Elec., Inc. v. First Nat. Bank of Logansport
... ... Hoosier Glass Co., Inc., and General ... Builders of ... to as Logan Square) and entered into a loan agreement with the First National Bank of ... denied; Hoosier Plastics v. Westfield Savings & Loan Association (1982), ... ...