Legal Opinion · Dissent

Samaddar v. Jones & Jones Agency, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided May 6, 2002No. 47A04-0110-CV-467Published

1DissentBrook, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent. In my view, Sa-maddar made a legal and effective tender to Jones on the morning of December 15 and is therefore entitled to summary judgment.

As the majority correctly observes, "(lf a purchaser makes a good tender after default, but before the vendor has commenced foreclosure proceedings, the purchaser has a valid defense to the action." Dunfee v. Waite, 439 N.E.2d 664, 666 (Ind.Ct.App.1982), trans. denied. Here, Samaddar tendered $11,776.00 to Jones's attorney on the morning of December 15, after the 12:01 am. deadline2 but before Jones initiated foreclosure…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Carmel Natural Gas & Improvement Co. v. SmallIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
  2. McFarland v. ChristoffIndiana Court of Appeals · 1950
  3. Chesterton State Bank v. CoffeyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Moore v. Anchor Federal Saving & Loan Ass'nIndiana Court of Appeals · 1968
  5. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co v. Anderson Tool Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API