• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Contact Us (317) 692-9000

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Directions

Kroger Gardis Regas, LLP

Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP

  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
You are here: Home / Banking and Commercial Transactions / Lender Beware: The Unintended Consequence of Loan Modifications

Lender Beware: The Unintended Consequence of Loan Modifications

August 21, 2015 //  by Melissa De Groff

Melissa-DeGroff-Web-BlogThe Indiana Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court order releasing a surety’s property from the lien of a mortgage, because the Lender and borrower modified secured obligation without the surety’s consent.

As an initial matter, a surety is a person who pledges collateral to a lender to secure repayment of a loan to another.  Like a guarantor, a surety does not receive the loan proceeds, and may not receive any direct benefit from the loan.

First Federal Bank of the Midwest v. Greenwalt, ___F.3d___, 2015 WL 4538515 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) involved a surety and a lender’s attempt to enforce its remedies against every bit of collateral available.

First Federal Bank of the Midwest (“First Federal”) extended a single $300,000 open-ended line of credit to a company (“Borrower”) solely owned by David Greenwalt (“David”).  As consideration for the loan, David provided First Federal a guaranty, and David and his then wife Karen Greenwalt (“Greenwalt”) executed a mortgage in favor of First Federal on a 121 acre parcel of land (“Tract One”) and a 40 acre parcel of land (“Tract Two”).  The Mortgage explicitly stated it secured a maximum $300,000 line of credit to Borrower.

In the subsequent divorce proceedings, Greenwalt was awarded Tract One, and David was awarded Tract Two.

Over the next seven years, First Federal extended the maturity of the line of credit via a series of renewal notes, and extended an additional $161,000 of credit to Borrower.  In 2009, First Federal converted the line of credit to a “closed end LOC”.  Instead of the original monthly interest-only payments, the 2009 modification required Borrower to pay monthly principal and accrued interest payments over 35 months.  Greenwalt was not notified of any of the renewals or modifications of the loan.

David eventually filed for bankruptcy protection, and his guaranty obligations to First Federal were discharged in 2011.  During the bankruptcy, First Federal liquidated all of Borrower’s collateral, as well as David’s Tract Two, then filed suit against Greenwalt to foreclose the Mortgage against Tract One.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order releasing Tract One from the lien of the Mortgage.

Citing established case law, the Court held First Federal’s conversion of the line of credit to what amounted to a term loan, with the accompanying payment modification, constituted a “material alteration” of the loan.  And, since the material alteration was completed without any notice to Greenwalt as the surety, her surety obligations evidenced by the Mortgage were released.

A guarantor in the same situation – assuming the guaranty does not contain a prior consent provision – would also be released from her guaranty obligations.

For more information about how to prevent the release of a surety as a result of loan modifications, please contact Melissa De Groff, or any member of our Banking and Commercial Transactions team.

Category: Banking and Commercial Transactions, BlogTag: Melissa McCarty

Previous Post: « A GUARANTY BY AMBUSH OR “OOPS – WHAT DID THAT AGREEMENT SAY?”
Next Post: Marion County Landlord Registry »

Primary Sidebar

If you are interested in our services please fill out the form below.

RECENT POSTS

Indiana Enacts Additional Restrictions Physician Non-Compete Agreements

The Bottom Line Effective July 1, 2023:  employers …

Video Recordings of Students

Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), …

KGR is Hiring: Public Relations & Marketing Specialist

Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP is an Indianapolis-based law …

What Happens to Your Social Media Accounts After Your Death?

Estate planning has not always kept up with the pace of change …

7 Attorneys Selected as Super Lawyers 2023

We are thrilled to announce Super Lawyers selected seven KGR …

Footer

Indianapolis Office

Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 692-9000
(317) 264-6832
Directions

Connect with us!

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Newsletter

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, http://www.kgrlaw.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Copyright © 2023 · Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP · Log in