IBJNews

$22M foreclosure suit targets local apartment complexes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The owner of three apartment complexes in Indianapolis is the target of a $22 million foreclosure suit brought by a lender seeking to have the properties placed in receivership.

New York-based Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending Inc. is suing several affiliates of Montvale, N.J.-based Empire American Holdings, which owns 328 properties in 17 states.

In the suit filed Monday in Marion Superior Court, Merrill Lynch alleges Empire affiliates defaulted on a loan provided in May 2007 that included financing for the three Indianapolis complexes.

They are the 160-unit Dogwood Glen Apartments near West 79th Street and Township Line Road on the city’s northwest side; the 125-unit Elmtree Park Apartments near East 10th Street and North German Church Road on the far-east side; and the 135-unit Heathmoore Apartments near South Arlington Avenue and East Thompson Road on the southeast side.

Average monthly rents at the three complexes range from $420 to $508.
 
None of the principal has been paid on any of the three loans, according to the suit. The amounts are $6.7 million on the Dogwood loan, $4.2 million on the Elmtree loan and $5.2 million on the Heathmoore loan, Merrill Lynch alleges.

Millions of dollars in interest and penalties push the total amount owed to nearly $22 million, according to the suit.

Merrill Lynch said trustee U.S. Bank sent its first notice of default in December 2010 and followed with a second notice in March 2011.  

The lender is suing the affiliates for breach of contract and is asking a judge to appoint a receiver to manage the three properties as it attempts to take possession of them.

A phone number listed for Empire American Holdings was not in service Wednesday morning.

Merrill Lynch is represented by attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg LLP.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT