Kelley Kronenberg Partner Travis Barry and Of Counsel Matthew Warner secured a full affirmance from the Indiana Court of Appeals in a mortgage foreclosure case with approximately $89,000.00 at stake. The Court upheld the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and decree of foreclosure for the firm’s client, Franklin Credit Management Corporation, the loan servicer and attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff trust.

The borrower signed a $27,980.00 promissory note in 2005, secured by a mortgage on a Hammond, Indiana home. She stopped paying in February 2007 and made no payments after that. The plaintiff filed its foreclosure complaint in January 2025. Representing herself, the borrower moved for summary judgment, arguing that the six-year statute of limitations began to run at her 2007 default and expired years before suit. She also challenged the plaintiff’s standing to enforce the loan.

Travis and Matthew built the record around the structure of the note itself. The note contained an optional acceleration clause, meaning default alone did not accelerate the debt. Under the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Blair v. EMC Mortgage, LLC, a lender’s cause of action accrues on a missed payment, on acceleration, or at maturity, and the limitations period runs from whichever event the lender relies on. The plaintiff did not accelerate until after sending a notice of default in February 2023 and giving the borrower until March 30, 2023 to cure. She did not cure. The January 2025 complaint was filed within six years of that acceleration and was timely.

On standing, the designated evidence showed that the note was endorsed in blank and held by the plaintiff, making it payable to the bearer. Recorded assignments completed the chain of title for the mortgage. The firm supported the default and the amount owed with an affidavit from a servicer foreclosure analyst and the loan payment history. The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and denied the borrower’s cross-motion. She appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed on every issue in a 20-page memorandum decision. It agreed that the action was timely because the debt was accelerated in 2023, not 2007, and that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce both the note and the mortgage. It also held that the borrower’s claim that the payment history was incomplete went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Because she designated no evidence of her own, the claim did not create a genuine issue of material fact. The Court declined her request to remand the case for consideration of a pending motion to set aside the judgment.

To read the Court’s opinion, click here.

Click here to learn more about Kelley Kronenberg’s Real Estate practice.

Stay abreast of the latest developments in real estate law with our newsletter, “In the Know: Real Estate Edition.” Get the latest issue here.