Bradford, J.
Case Summary
Appellant-Defendant Bryant Duty Sr. appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment. The judgment in question was a foreclosure action decided in favor of U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of American Homeowner Preservation Trust 2014A (“U.S. Bank”), and involving Duty’s South Bend house (“the House”). [Footnote omitted.] Duty had executed a promissory note (“the Note”) and mortgage (“the Mortgage”) (collectively, “the Loan Documents”) in favor of Wilmington Finance upon purchase of the House. Duty contends that he is entitled to relief from judgment on the basis that the entity which pursued the foreclosure action in 2009 had no legal right to enforce the Loan Documents at the time. Because we conclude that Duty has no standing to challenge the assignment of the Loan Documents from assignor to assignee, we affirm.
….
Duty’s argument is apparently that a faulty assignment (or faulty assignments) of the Loan Documents at some point broke the “chain of assignments.” Even if we assume that each and every assignment of the Loan Documents has been faulty, it would not help Duty. Although our research does not reveal that the question has been previously addressed in Indiana, courts have routinely found that a debtor may not challenge an assignment between an assignor and assignee…..
….
We find the above authority to be persuasive and explicitly adopt the general proposition that a debtor does not have standing to challenge an allegedly invalid assignment of the right to collect the debt. [Footnote omitted.] Regardless of any assignments of the Loan Documents, Duty’s rights and duties remained the same. Any conflict regarding who actually possessed the right to enforce the Loan Documents is between the various claimants (if any) to that right and does not involve Duty. Because we conclude that Duty does not have standing to challenge any allegedly invalid assignments of the Loan Documents, he has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief from judgment.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.