Generally, after an act of unlawful violence or credible threat of violence is made against an employee, the employer may immediately apply for and be granted a temporary restraining order which is effective for a maximum of 15 days.  Prior to the expiration of this 15-day period, the court will also conduct a hearing at which time it may issue a permanent restraining order effective for a period of 3 years.  As opposed other types of restraining orders, the Indiana Workplace Violence Restraining Order is a particularly useful for employers as it allows the employer to obtain an order on behalf of an employee and it applies to specific property and locations, not just people.

If you have any questions about Indiana Workplace Violence Restraining Orders, please contact Dan Robinson or one of the other Manufacturing or Distribution attorneys at Bamberger.

Author: Daniel R. Robinson (bio)
Phone: 812.452.3564
Email: drobinson@bamberger.com

Common in most contracts (including loan documents), an integration clause is a provision typically stating that the written contract supersedes all previous understandings, negotiations, or agreements, whether written or oral, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of the agreement.  The purpose of such a  provision is to limit evidence of contrary or conflicting agreements, inconsistent with the parties’ written contract. 

In the case, the guarantors had entered into separate guaranties with respect to two loans.  After default on both loans, the lender brought suit.  Evidently, through a sheriff’s sale, one of the two loans was paid in full.  However, the lender sought to obtain judgment against the guarantors for the indebtedness still due and owing on the smaller loan.  The guarantors’ primary defense was that they should be relieved from liability because of an integration clause contained in the guaranty of the loan that had been paid off.  They also argued that the lender failed to advise them as to the meaning of the guaranty.

In ruling for the lender on both issues, the Court first noted that the two loan transactions were entirely separate contractual transactions and the integration clause contained in the subsequently executed guaranty pertained only to those agreements that were a part of the negotiations directly leading up to that specific loan.  The Court also held absent special circumstances, a lender does not owe fiduciary duties to a borrower requiring it to advise or recommend that the borrower seek legal counsel in connection with a commercial transaction.  In the instant case, the guarantors were physicians who had “embarked upon a sophisticated business venture”. 

While the result in this decision was good for the lender, the case does highlight the need to make certain loan transactions are documented properly.  Failing to do so might result in unintended consequences down the road. 

If you have any questions regarding this case, or any other lending or transactional issue, please contact one of the banking attorneys at Bamberger.

Author: Daniel R. Robinson (bio)
Phone: 812.452.3564
Email: drobinson@bamberger.com

1)      Pre-suit Foreclosure Notice.  Under the new law, the 30-day pre-suit foreclosure notice (which was previously required to be sent in all foreclosure cases), is now only required in cases involving the debtor’s primary residence.  The new law serves to clarify an ambiguity under prior law, which should help to reduce costs and delays in commercial foreclosure actions while still protecting consumers at risk of losing their homes.

2)      New 180-Day Period to File Praecipe.  Previously, a judgment holder in a foreclosure action was essentially left to praecipe a sheriff’s sale at-will.  Now, if the judgment holder fails to file a praecipe initiating a sheriff’s sale within 180 days after:

1. the judgment and decree of foreclosure is entered or
2. 3 months from the filing of the complaint,

whichever is later, and such sale is not otherwise prohibited by law, subject to a voluntary statewide foreclosure moratorium, or subject to a written agreement between the owner of the property and the judgment holder, an enforcement authority that has issued an abatement order may proceed to set the property for sale. 

For purposes of this new provision, an enforcement authority is defined as the executive department authorized by ordinance to administer the Unsafe Building Law or, in a consolidated city, the department of metropolitan development.  It should be noted, however, that if no abatement order has been issued, or one of the other exceptions apply, the traditional rule regarding setting a property for sheriff’s sale remains unchanged. 

3)      New 120-Day Requirement to Sell Property.  In addition to the new praecipe time limits, all sheriff’s sales in Indiana must now be conducted within 120 days after the judgment and decree of foreclosure is certified to the sheriff under seal of court.  While this new requirement should not cause many problems in traditional sheriff-conducted sales, it might present an issue with foreclosure sales conducted by an auctioneer if the new time limits are not kept in mind.

4)      Payment of Property Taxes Prior to Sale.   Finally, all outstanding property taxes must now be paid prior to a sheriff’s sale.  This requirement includes redeeming all property taxes which were sold in a prior tax sale and/or payment of all delinquent taxes and penalties.  Although most Indiana sheriffs already required the taxes to be brought current prior to a sale, it has now been codified statewide.

If you have any questions about the changes to Indiana’s foreclosure law, please contact a Bamberger attorney for more information.

Author: Daniel R. Robinson (bio)
Phone: 812.452.3564
Email: drobinson@bamberger.com