Middleton Factors Support Conclusion That Statutory Amendment Is Clarifying
MILLER v. LASALLE BANK (February 19, 2010)
In 2001, individuals entered into a mortgage on an Indiana property with LaSalle Bank's predecessor. The mortgage was recorded -- but the acknowledgment had a technical defect. In 2007, the individuals petitioned for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding against La Salle to avoid the mortgage. Indiana law provides that a "properly acknowledged" mortgage is constructive notice of the mortgage to later bona fide purchasers (BFPs). Prior to 2007, Indiana courts held that a mortgage with a technical defect in the acknowledgment did not amount to constructive notice. The Indiana legislature amended the statute in 2007 to overrule the case law and allow constructive notice even with certain technical defects. The legislature amended the statute again in 2008 to provide that the statute applied to all mortgages, regardless of the date of recording. The dispute in the adversary proceeding centered on whether, prior to the 2008 amendment, the 2007 amendment applied to mortgages recorded prior to 2007. The bankruptcy court concluded that the 2007 amendment applied only to mortgages recorded after its effective date. The district court reversed. The Trustee appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Wood, and Evans affirmed. The Court began with the statute and the Indiana rules of statutory construction. Concluding that both parties' constructions of the language of the statute were reasonable, the Court held that the statute was ambiguous and proceeded to apply rules of interpretation. One such rule is the presumption that an amendment to a statute is intended to change the meaning of the statute unless it is clear that the legislature intended to clarify its original intent. The Court applied the factors set forth in Middleton (intheiropinion.com post) to determine whether the 2008 amendment amended or clarified the 2007 amendment. It concluded that the 2008 amendment was a clarifying amendment under Middleton because: a) they were enacted in the same legislative session and sponsored by many of the same legislators, b) the 2007 amendment was ambiguous, and c) the bankruptcy trustees were actively seeking to avoid mortgages on technical grounds after the 2007 amendment.
From 1960 until 1989, Charles Middleton served in the Air Force. On two occasions in the early 1990s, he applied for positions with the City of Chicago. He was not hired for either position. In 2007, Middleton sued the City pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). He alleged that the City refused to employ him on account of his military service. The district court applied the four year "catch-all" statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (a) and dismissed his complaint. Middleton appeals..jpg)
Congress has specified a process under which an employer is allowed to obtain a visa for an alien worker. Before the government can issue a visa to such an alien, it must have issued a labor certification. A labor certification is a statement by the Secretary of Labor that there are insufficient qualified workers available to perform specific work and that the hiring of an alien to perform the work will not adversely affect wages and working conditions. In the past, labor certifications were generally valid indefinitely. The regulations were amended, effective July 2007, to provide that a labor certification was only valid for 180 days from the date of the certification. A number of employers who had received labor certifications and the aliens who were to be hired filed suit, alleging that the agency acted beyond its authority in amending the regulation or, alternatively, that it should not have been applied retroactively. The district court granted summary judgment to the government. The employers and aliens appeal.
Christopher Moreland was arrested on a drunk driving charge in 1997. While in jail, he was beaten to death. His estate filed suit, pursuant to § 1983, against three jail officers. In May of 2002, a jury returned a verdict against two of the officers for $29 million in compensatory and $27.5 million in punitive damages. The jury deadlocked in the case against the third officer. A defense verdict was returned after a September 2003 retrial. In July of 2003, Indiana amended its statute governing the indemnification of government employees. Prior to the amendment, indemnification was discretionary. After the amendment, indemnification for non-punitive damages became mandatory. In 2007, Moreland's estate filed a motion for a writ of execution to collect the award of compensatory damages from St. Joseph County. The district court denied the motion. The Estate appeals.