« May 2019 | Main | July 2019 »

County Sale Agent SRI Not Liable To Tax Sale Purchaser In Wake Of Overturned Sale

Lesson. A chagrined tax sale purchaser, whose tax deed is set aside for notice-related deficiencies, cannot sue the county’s sale contractor for alleged lost profits.

Case cite. M Jewell v. Bainbridge 113 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)

Legal issues. Whether a tax sale purchaser can sue the county’s sale agent for breach of a contract that the agent had with the county; whether the tax sale purchaser was fully compensated for its alleged losses.

Vital facts. Plaintiff tax sale purchaser (Purchaser) bought a property at a county real estate tax sale, which was later overturned by the court based upon notice-related failures in the sale process. Purchaser received a statutory refund of the amount it paid for the property plus some interest and other items totaling about $7,000.

Defendant SRI is a company that contracted with the county to perform certain services related to tax sales. Those services included preparing and mailing notices to owners with delinquent real estate taxes. One of the reasons this particular sale was overturned was that “the [county] auditor and SRI failed to perform the additional research” necessary to substantially comply with the statutory notice requirements under Indiana’s tax sale laws. Purchaser sued SRI claiming that it suffered nearly $800,000 in damages for lost profits from the failed sale.

Procedural history. The trial court granted summary judgment for SRI. Purchaser appealed.

Key rules. Generally, only parties to a contract have rights under the contract. The Jewell opinion outlines many of Indiana’s rules that govern when so-called “third-party beneficiaries” can sue under a contract. Purchaser claimed it was a third-party beneficiary under the SRI/county contract.

Tax sale purchasers in Indiana buy at their own risk. “There is no warranty in tax sales.”

“The remedy for purchasers at invalid tax sales or holders of invalid tax deeds is wholly statutory.” Ind. Code 6-1.1-25-10 and 11 detail the refund procedure.

Holding. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and held that (a) Purchaser was not a third-party beneficiary of the SRI/county agreement and thus had no standing to sue SRI for breach of contract and (b) regardless, Purchaser had been fully compensated for its losses under the applicable statute.

Policy/rationale. Regarding the third-party beneficiary issue, the Court reasoned that the county and SRI did not intend to protect tax sale purchasers under their agreement. “It is not enough that the performance of the contract would be of an incidental benefit to [Purchaser].” Regardless, Purchaser’s remedy was statutory, and the Court concluded that Purchaser had been made whole. Purchaser identified “no statutory or common law authority that it [was] entitled to lost profits rather than the statutory refund amount.”

Related posts.

I am sometimes engaged to represent parties in connection with contested tax sales. If you need assistance with a similar matter, please call me at 317-639-6151 or email me at john.waller@woodenlawyers.com. Also, don’t forget that you can follow me on Twitter @JohnDWaller or on LinkedIn, or you can subscribe to posts via RSS or email as noted on my home page.

Mortgage Loan Servicer Sued For Race Discrimination After Denying Loan Assumption

Lesson. Creditors cannot discriminate against an applicant for a credit transaction based on race, but a plaintiff applicant needs to put forth evidence of discrimination in order to survive a creditor’s motion for summary judgment.

Case cite. Sims v. New Penn, 906_F.3d_678 (7th Cir. 2018)

Legal issue. Whether there was sufficient evidence of racial discrimination to avoid the entry of summary judgment against the Plaintiffs.

Vital facts. Plaintiffs, an African-American couple, bought a house that was subject to a mortgage that secured a loan to the seller. The loan later went into default. Upon learning of the mortgage and the default, the Plaintiffs tried to assume the loan in order to avoid a foreclosure sale. This went on for years. The mortgage contained language that purchasers of the mortgaged property could assume the loan if the loan servicer (a) received information to evaluate the purchasers “as if a new loan were being made” and (b) determined that the assumption “would not impair its security.”

At one point in time, the defendant loan servicer advised the Plaintiffs of what was needed in order to apply for a loan assumption, and the servicer postponed a foreclosure sale to give the Plaintiffs an opportunity to submit the required paperwork. The servicer contended that the Plaintiffs did not submit a proper application. In addition, the servicer required that the loan be made current before an assumption could occur but refused to disclose information about the status of the loan without the seller/mortgagor’s written consent, which evidently never occurred. In the end, the servicer did not approve a loan assumption.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the loan servicer denied the loan assumption based upon race. They alleged that they were treated rudely. The Plaintiffs also claimed that an African-American employee of the servicer told them over the phone: “[t]hese people, you know how they treat us.”

Procedural history. The Plaintiffs sued the loan servicer in federal court and alleged race discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 USC 1691-1691f (ECOA). The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana entered summary judgment for the defendant loan servicer, and the Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Key rules. The ECOA makes it “unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race….” Section 1691(a)(1).

Holding. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.

Policy/rationale. The Plaintiffs argued that the defendant loan servicer discriminated against them when the servicer prohibited the Plaintiffs from assuming the loan. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that the servicer delayed the application process and required them to first make all of the seller/mortgagor’s overdue payments as a condition of assumption, which condition was not required by the mortgage.

The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs’ “evidence of racial discrimination [was] too speculative to establish a dispute of material fact.” For the Plaintiffs to survive summary judgment, they needed to put forth more evidence than the employee’s alleged statement, which the Court found to be “vague and require[d] too much speculation to conclude that their race motivated [the servicer] to require them to satisfy [the seller’s] outstanding loan payments.” Further, the Plaintiffs did not tender any proof to dispute the servicer’s evidence that the Plaintiffs never produced a complete application.

As an aside, there was a question as to whether the ECOA applied in the first place because the Plaintiffs were trying to assume credit rather than “extend, renew or continue” credit.

Related posts.

I sometimes represent mortgage loan servicers in foreclosure-related litigation. My firm also has employment lawyers who defend race discrimination cases. If you need assistance with a similar matter, please call me at 317-639-6151 or email me at john.waller@woodenlawyers.com. Also, don’t forget that you can follow me on Twitter @JohnDWaller or on LinkedIn, or you can subscribe to posts via RSS or email as noted on my home page.