A blog is a form of web communication allowing companies of all sizes to reach new audiences and build a loyal web following. Blogging software is the first true easy to use solution for small business and free agents allowing one to create, publish, manage, share, and syndicate communications to new and existing customers.

All you truly need to do if you are going to explore in this fashion, is to go onto any search engine on the world wide web, and then key in the word or phrase “BMW Indianapolis dealership”, and at that point you will discover that a number of various links will arise that you can go to and look into and this is extremely useful since rather than having to really go out and check them out for yourself you can simply discover if they have what you are seeking online, in the privacy and comfort of your own house. A beneficial thought is to locate a few dealerships that you prefer, so that you have narrowed it down, and then you can visit these in person and talk to the sales staff there so that you can get more information, and so that you can really see the cars for yourself. Never purchase anything as larger and expensive as a car over the Internet, since you want to be certain that you know precisely what you are acquiring, and you can frequently be deceived or fooled over the Internet.

Honda emphasized on their announcement of hiring that they will look for diversity on their workforce. “We are committed to recruiting candidates from diverse backgrounds to become part of our team,” McCoy stated in his announcement. This proclamation shows that true to its image, the car maker is an equal opportunity employer. This may be the reason for the admirable work ethics of their associates. Honda chooses to call their directly employed worker as associates. The assembly plant being constructed in Greensburg will handle all the jobs being performed by other huge automobile assembly plant. Stamping, body welding, plastic injection-molding, sub assembly processes, painting, and final assembly are the jobs that the Greensburg plant will be dealing with. Vehicles that will be produced at the said plant will be for the 2009 model year. The construction of the vehicles, which up to now Honda has yet to name, will start in fall of 2008. The assembly plant is being constructed on a 1,700 acre site in Decatur County, found on the northwest part of Greensburg. This will be the sixth plant in the United States of the Asian auto manufacturer.

A seller will (and should) normally hire a Realtor or Real Estate Agent to assist them in marketing and negotiating the sale of their home. We’ll call this Agent the “Listing Agent”, they will then market the property with a main focus on the local property listing system. [Side Note- Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors (MIBOR) recently decided to change the name of our local system from MLS (Multiple Listing System) to BLC (Broker Listing Cooperative). I'll discuss this topic on another post.] The seller and the Listing Agent will agree on a price for services upon the effective sale of the home. What you need to understand at this point is that the Listing Agent will use a portion (normally half, sometimes more, sometimes less) of those funds to attract other agents. If the Listing Agent finds the buyer for the property then they keep the entire agreed amount (which can be different that if another agent brings the buyer).

Dempsey’s ongoing saga. Many of Dempsey’s problems began when a state court entered a judgment against him and in favor of the Carters. To satisfy the judgment, the state court ordered an execution sale on real estate owned by Dempsey on which Chase Bank held a mortgage. At the execution sale, Chase Bank bid the amount of its mortgage and, with no other bids, took title to the property immediately. This is when Chase obtained a writ of assistance to evict Dempsey and his tenants from the property. (See my March 2, 2007 article.)

Judgment enforcement v. mortgage enforcement. Dempsey continued to pursue relief associated with the loss of his real estate by asserting claims based upon language in his mortgage agreement. But, as Judge Tinder observed, the mortgage-based equitable arguments were not applicable to Dempsey’s situation because “this was not a mortgage foreclosure.” Id. at 6. Dempsey believed, incorrectly, that the execution sale was like a mortgage foreclosure. “However, these are distinct procedures in Indiana.” Id. For more background, compare I.C. § 32-30-10 “Mortgage Foreclosure Actions” with I.C. § 34-55-6 “Sale of Property on Execution”. Judge Tinder pointed out perhaps the main distinction between the two types of sales. “While mortgage foreclosure provides a right of redemption, execution on a judgment does not.” Id.; I.C. § 32-30-10-11; Ind. Trial Rule 69(A). In Dempsey, lender Chase Bank was not foreclosing its mortgage on Dempsey’s property. Rather, Chase was a lien holder bidding at the sale of an asset of Dempsey’s, which sale was designed to satisfy the money judgment held by the Carters. Judge Tinder rejected Dempsey’s theory that the execution sale should be undone, on page 6 of the opinion: “There is nothing inherently inequitable about a lien holder bidding at an execution sale or, upon buying the property, refusing to give back the property to the previous owner who lacks a right of redemption.”

An aside, lis pendens discussion. One other point of interest in Judge Tinder’s opinion surrounds the validity of two lis pendens notices Dempsey filed on the property at issue. Generally, “lis pendens is a way to give notice to the public, and in particular to potential buyers, that litigation is pending which may affect the rights in a piece of property.” Id. at 12. Rules applicable to lis pendens are statutory in Indiana, and a link to I.C. § 32-30-11 is permanently placed along the left side of my blog’s home page. Dempsey had two related state court actions pending that, theoretically, could affect title to the property. In the federal court case, Chase argued that it was entitled to have the lis pendens notices removed because a determination had been made that Dempsey has no interest in the subject property. I.C. § 32-30-11-7. Unfortunately for Chase, Judge Tinder, on a procedural technicality, had to punt the issue to state court for resolution. Importantly, however, Judge Tinder did offer that “it appears that Dempsey had no right to use lis pendens in the manner that he did . . ..” Id. at 13. The Dempsey opinion illustrates that, generally, lis pendens notices are inappropriate encumbrances on title when the party filing the notice has no interest in the property or when litigation that may affect the rights in a piece of property has been concluded.

In sum. In the unlikely event a commercial lender/mortgagee gets involved in another creditor’s judgment enforcement action seeking to execute on the borrower/mortgagor’s real estate, the lender, not unlike with mortgage foreclosure sale, can bid at the auction and ultimately may be able to acquire title to the property. Unlike a mortgage foreclosure sale, however, the borrower/mortgagor does not have the right at the last minute to redeem (pay off) the mortgage and retain title to the property. Certainly that could be negotiated, but the statutes applicable to execution sales do not require it. Always make sure you are familiar with the rules pertinent to your type of sale.

Facts of Rose. Plaintiffs sued an S-Corp, and the trial court entered judgment against S-Corp for $159,581. During the litigation, the owners of S-Corp sold the company in an asset sale to Corporation I for $475,000. Corporation I then transferred its rights and obligations under the asset-purchase agreement to Corporation II, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporation I. After the sale, the owners of S-Corp deposited the sale proceeds into S-Corp’s bank account and, within three days, issued checks to themselves for the entire sale price. The closing occurred approximately one month after the trial court entered judgment for Plaintiffs.

About a year later, presumably because the judgment had not been paid, Plaintiffs moved for proceedings supplemental and brought fraudulent transfer claims against S-Corp, Corporation I, Corporation II, and S-Corp’s owners. Plaintiffs asserted that assets had been transferred out of S-Corp to avoid paying the judgment. During the proceedings supplemental, Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint to add additional claims and to recover new damages. The result was a new judgment for Plaintiffs for $542,435.49 plus attorney’s fees of $162,730. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the two owners of S-Corp fraudulently transferred assets, but the Court set aside the new claims for new damages.

Proceedings supplemental generally. Proceedings supplemental are designed to help judgment creditors enforce judgments – for discovering assets and to set aside fraudulent conveyances. Proceedings supplemental are merely the continuation of an original action. Ind. Trial Rule 69(E) generally governs proceedings supplemental, and the motion is made in the court where judgment was rendered. Discovery is permitted, and a hearing must be conducted, after which certain property is to be applied toward the judgment. Id. at 4-5.

Fraudulent transfer. Judgment creditors often use proceedings supplemental to bring fraudulent transfer actions, the purpose of which is to remove “obstacles which prevent the enforcement of the judgment . . . through the levy of execution.” The essence of a fraudulent transfer action is not to attack the transfer or to recover damages. Instead, the action “is to subject property to execution as though it were still in the name of the grantor.” Id at 6-7.

New claims. Unlike Plaintiffs’ fraudulent transfer claims, Plaintiffs also sought new damages from the S-Corp owners by adding a new cause of action under Indiana’s Crime Victims’ Compensation Act, which allows for treble damages and attorney’s fees. The Court said this was a no-no: “Allowing a new claim to be tacked on at this stage would be just as unfitting as opening up any other litigation to add new claims after judgment. Such an approach to collections would lay the groundwork for perpetual motion-a far cry from the timely and efficient system of conflict resolution the nation’s judiciary strives to provide. Proceedings supplemental are appropriate only for actions to enforce and collect existing judgments, not to establish new ones.”

Id. at 7. So, a new claim for new damages, and thus the imposition of a new judgment, should be filed in a new lawsuit. On the other hand, “any action to assist in collection of an original judgment [like a proceeding supplement] must be filed under the same cause number as the original action.” Id.

In addition to addressing the generalities of proceedings supplemental, the Indiana Supreme Court provides clarity for lenders concerning fraudulent transfer actions, which can be appropriately prosecuted in proceedings supplemental or, in other words, in a continuation of the same case and in the same trial court that rendered the judgment. Any new claims or, in other words, actions for separate and distinct damages, however, must be the subject of another lawsuit.