Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Coleman

Supreme Court of Indiana

September 8, 2014

In the Matter of: Jesse L. COLEMAN, Respondent

Loretta H. Rush, Chief Justice of Indiana. All Justices concur.

OPINION

Loretta H. Rush, Chief Justice of Indiana

PUBLISHED ORDER FINDING MISCONDUCT AND IMPOSING DISCIPLINE

Upon review of the report of the hearing officer, the Honorable Robert R. Altice, Jr., who was appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's " Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action," and the briefs of the parties, the Court finds that Respondent engaged in professional misconduct and imposes discipline on Respondent.

Facts: In June 2006, T.C. and her husband, GC, were struggling financially. They lived in a home which T.C. owned. On June 26, 2006, the nominee of the holder of a mortgage on TC's home (" the Mortgage Foreclosure plaintiff" ) initiated a " Mortgage Foreclosure Case" by filing a " Foreclosure Complaint" against TC.

TC met with the Respondent on or about July 17, 2006, to discuss her financial problems. Respondent suggested bankruptcy as a solution, and T.C. hired Respondent to file bankruptcy for her and GC. Respondent advised T.C. that the filing fee for a bankruptcy would be $294, and T.C. paid that fee to Respondent on that date. T.C. gave him a copy of the Foreclosure Complaint. Respondent informed T.C. that his fee would be $1500, with $250 to be

Page 999

paid before the bankruptcy would be filed, $250 before the first meeting of creditors, and the remainder through the bankruptcy plan. It is undisputed that T.C. and GC never paid Respondent any attorney fees.

On July 20, 2006, the Respondent filed his appearance for T.C. in the Mortgage Foreclosure Case and a motion asking for an extension of time to respond to the Foreclosure Complaint, which the foreclosure court granted. Respondent filed his appearance in the Mortgage Foreclosure Case for the limited purpose of monitoring the status of the case, which Respondent testified is a common practice among bankruptcy attorneys in such situations. There is no evidence that T.C. had any defense to the foreclosure action. Rather, TC's only possible remedy would be to pay the mortgage arrearage as part of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.

On May 4, 2007, the foreclosure court entered a default judgment entry and decree of foreclosure (" the Foreclosure Decree" ), which gave the Mortgage Foreclosure plaintiff a personal judgment against T.C. for $61,118.73 and ordered that TC's home be sold at a sheriff's sale. On July 18, 2007, TC's home was sold at the sheriff's sale to the Mortgage Foreclosure plaintiff.

On August 9, 2007, Respondent filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for T.C. and GC. He testified that he did so even though he had not received any attorney fees because he felt sorry for TC. Respondent did not notify the foreclosure court of the bankruptcy at that time. On September 28, 2007, Respondent filed a Chapter 13 plan for GC and T.C. with the bankruptcy court. The Mortgage Foreclosure plaintiff objected to the plan, noting that the mortgage no longer existed since TC's home had been sold at a sheriff's sale two months earlier. The bankruptcy court rejected the Chapter 13 plan. On October 3, 2007, Respondent filed a Notice of Automatic Stay in the Mortgage Foreclosure Case.

On October 25, 2007, Respondent failed to appear for the " § 341" meeting of creditors in T.C. and GC's bankruptcy. On that date, the bankruptcy court scheduled a Motion to Abandon and Motion for Relief from Stay, which the Mortgage Foreclosure plaintiff had filed earlier, for a hearing. Respondent timely filed an objection and a motion to set aside the foreclosure judgment.

At a hearing on November 27, 2007, the bankruptcy court granted the motion for relief from stay, over Respondent's objection, and denied his motion to set aside the foreclosure, clearing the way for the Mortgage Foreclosure plaintiff to take possession of the house. On December 12, 2007, T.C. and GC were evicted from the house. There is no evidence that T.C. and GC ever had the financial means to fund a Chapter 13 plan to save the house.

On February 9, 2008, Respondent filed a notice to convert their bankruptcy from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 liquidation. On May 13, 2008, the bankruptcy case was closed, without any discharge of debts because T.C. failed to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.