Lesson. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge negates personal liability of debtors, such as borrowers or guarantors, for loans, but the discharge does not terminate mortgage liens on the real estate that secured the debt.

Case cite. Klunder v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 247 N.E.3d 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024)

Vital facts. Borrowers filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case that led to their discharge from personal liability under their mortgage loan. Borrowers continued to live in the mortgaged property and made loan payments for a few more years, at which point the servicing of the loan changed to Servicer, which did not initially send mortgage statements to Borrowers. Borrowers initiated a round of communications with Servicer about the statements and ended up ceasing to make loan payments. Years later, Servicer starting sending statements again, with language related to bankruptcies and discharges. Because Borrowers did not make loan payments for several years, Lender initiated foreclosure proceedings against the property (not the Borrowers individually). Borrowers counterclaimed for alleged violations of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA) based on correspondence from Servicer related to the collection of the unpaid loan.

Procedural history. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Lender and Servicer related to the counterclaim.

Key rules.

BK discharge: The opinion in Klunder initially pointed out that a Chapter 7 “discharge extinguishes only ‘the personal liability of the debtor.’” However, the “discharge of debt has no bearing on the validity of the mortgage lien.” What this means is that a Chapter 7 discharge “removes the ability of creditors to seek to collect against the [a borrower or guarantor] individually (known as in personam liability),” but liens—like a mortgage—are “in rem meaning they are rights against the property which are enforceable” even after Chapter 7 discharge.

DCSA: The Court noted that the DCSA is designed to “protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable sales acts.” I.C. § 24-5-0.5-1(b)(2). A supplier “may not commit an unfair, abusive, or deceptive act, omission, or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.” I.C. § 24-5-0.5-3(a) (2019). The DCSA allows a “person relying upon an uncured or incurable deceptive act [to] bring an action for the damages actually suffered[.]” I.C. § 24-5-0.5-4(a) (2019). Importantly, however, the DCSA “does not apply” to an act or practice “required or expressly permitted by federal law, rule, or regulation . . . or . . . state law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.” I.C. § 24-5-0.5-6.

Holding. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment ruling.

Policy/rationale. The Court found that the DCSA did not apply because the subject correspondence was permitted by law. For example, under federal law “a creditor shall—to the extent applicable—furnish a consumer with a periodic statement disclosing several items, including some information particular to home-equity plans.” Also, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.5(b)(2)(i) provides that creditors “shall mail or deliver a periodic statement as required by § 1026.7 for each billing cycle at the end of which an account has a debit or credit balance of more than $1 or on which a finance charge has been imposed.” Since Borrowers had defaulted by not making payments, Lender could lawfully foreclose the mortgage.

The Court felt that Borrowers misunderstood two “different but interrelated concepts: the loan due on the mortgage as shown by the [promissory note], and the lien on the property as shown by the mortgage.” The Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge merely protected Borrowers from personal liability on the loan. However, the mortgage lien on the property survived and was enforceable as an in rem action.


Photo of John D. Waller John D. Waller

John protects the interests of parties when businesses default on loans of all kinds, including; commercial real estate, loans secured by multi-family projects, senior nursing/assisted living facilities, agricultural operations and small businesses. This includes serving as an advocate during the work out of…

John protects the interests of parties when businesses default on loans of all kinds, including; commercial real estate, loans secured by multi-family projects, senior nursing/assisted living facilities, agricultural operations and small businesses. This includes serving as an advocate during the work out of underperforming loans; filing and defending lawsuits to enforce promissory notes, guaranties, and other written contracts; foreclosing mortgages and enforcing personal property security interests; applying for court-ordered receiverships; protecting lien rights in bankruptcy court; purchasing or selling distressed loans; and representing court-appointed receivers.

His practice also includes representing mortgage loan servicers and the corresponding trusts/investors in consumer finance litigation, including contested residential foreclosures, title insurance claims, regulatory violation cases, tax sale disputes, and compliance matters. John also asserts the rights of parties in complex, real estate-related and title litigation and represents companies and individuals in contract disputes.

An AV Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated lawyer and partner in the Indianapolis office of the national law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, John graduated from DePauw University in 1990 and immediately entered the Indiana University School of Law. In 1993, he received his license to practice in Indiana’s state and federal courts. John later completed an intensive week-long professional training program in trial skills presented by the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. John has represented companies and individuals in a wide variety of disputes. He has tried a number of bench and jury trials, and has handled several appeals. He and his wife have three sons.