Court Opinion

ID: 9531677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:13:49.24475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:33.874439
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Judge
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. I concur with the majority's analysis and determination of the first issue, namely that Bonilla is liable under the mortgages. As to the second issue, I dissent, finding that Perry failed to prove default under the terms of the notes.
In Yanoff v. Muncy, the Indiana Supreme Court noted that "a mortgagee must affirmatively establish the amount owed to him in order to recover, and that any doubt or uncertainty should operate against the mortgagee and not for him." 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1263 (Ind.1997). However, "amounts established by undisputed evidence remain collectible." Id. In Yanoff the Court held that testimony by a debtor was "enough to prove both the existence of the promissory note underlying the mortgage and the essential terms." Id. The debtor there testified as to the amount of the original debt, the interest rate, the existence of the mortgage, the schedule of payments, and the fact that he still owed money on the debt. Id.
Here, evidence on the essential terms is missing. Specifically, no evidence was presented on the terms of the promissory notes, the payment requirements, or what constituted an event of default. Were the notes due in one year? Were they due in ten years? Were they due in 30 years? Although the majority infers default because Bonilla testified that no payments had been made, without the terms of the notes and the payment requirements, 1 am unable to agree that the evidence presented proved that the loans are in default.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.