Pyle, J,
Statement of the Case
Susan Sanders (“Sanders”) appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to US Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, for ABS Loan Trust VI (“ABS”). Sanders argues that the trial court erred by granting ABS’ summary judgment motion. Concluding that the trial court did not err, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
We affirm.
….
Sanders argues that the trial court erred by granting ABS’ summary judgment motion. Specifically, she contends that the Appealed Order does not comply with INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14. The ultimate issue in this appeal is which party was entitled to the remaining sheriff sale proceeds. Sanders argues that, under INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14, ABS was not entitled to those remaining proceeds and that the proceeds should have, instead, been distributed to her. The crux of Sanders’ argument is that the timing of ABS’ filing of its summary judgment motion and affidavit of debt was “too late” for ABS to adjudge its lien rights because ABS’ “mortgage [lien] and claim based thereon was extinguished at the Sheriff’s Sale” and did not attach to the sheriff sale proceeds. (Sanders’ Br. 15).
….
We now turn back to our review of the trial court’s summary judgment order. Sanders and ABS agree that the facts in this case are undisputed. Those undisputed facts include the following: ABS had a valid second mortgage; Sanders defaulted on her obligation to make monthly payments on the loan secured by the second mortgage; Sanders filed for bankruptcy and then agreed that ABS could have relief from the bankruptcy stay in order to seek a foreclosure action on the Property and to obtain an in rem judgment; ABS filed its in rem complaint for foreclosure of its second mortgage; RCF filed an in rem counterclaim and crossclaim complaint for foreclosure of its first mortgage; RCF filed for and ABS consented to an in rem judgment; the trial court entered the March 2023 Order, in which it entered a default judgment against Sanders, granted an in rem judgment to RCF, determined that ABS had a valid lien against the Property that was subordinate to RCF’s lien, ordered that the Property would be sold at a sheriff’s sale, and specifically set forth the priority for how the sheriff sale proceeds would be distributed. [Footnote omitted.]
Sanders and ABS also agree that the trial court was required to follow INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14 when entering an order for the distribution of the sheriff sale proceeds….
….
In the trial court’s March 2023 Order, it determined the priority of liens for the appearing parties and entered an order for the distribution of the sheriff sale proceeds as follows: (1) costs of the action; (2) payment of property taxes due on the Property; (3) payment of sums due to RCF; (4) payment of sums due to ABS “as its interest may be proven upon further application to the Court[;]” (5) payment of sums due to Farm-Credit as could later be proven to the trial court; and (6) “if any proceeds remain, to the Clerk of this Court for the benefit of the parties and subject to further order of the Court[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 115). Thus, the March 2023 Order follows the general guidelines of INDIANA CODE § 32-30- 10-14.
….
Unlike Edler, here, the mortgagees, ABS and RCF, did indeed resolve their claims in one foreclosure proceeding, and ABS had its rights adjudged in that proceeding. ABS commenced this in rem foreclosure action and included all defendants who may have had an interest in the Property. In its complaint, ABS specifically asserted that “the outstanding unpaid principal balance” due at the time of filing the complaint was “$31,695.78, which continue[d] to accrue interest[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 32). RCF then filed its counterclaim/crossclaim in this case. ABS sought an in rem judgment to foreclose on its second mortgage lien, and RCF sought an in rem judgment to foreclose on its first mortgage lien. Following RCF’s filing of an agreed entry of an in rem judgment and decree of foreclosure and ABS’ consent thereto, the trial court entered the March 2023 Order. In that order, the trial court entered default judgment against Sanders, awarded RCF an in rem judgment, ordered that RCF’s first mortgage was foreclosed, determined that ABS had a valid lien against the Property that was subordinate to RCF’s lien, ordered that the Property would be sold at a sheriff’s sale, and then determined the order of lienholder priority for the distribution for those sheriff sale proceeds. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court ordered that—following the payment of general costs and taxes and disbursement to RCF to satisfy the sums due on its first mortgage lien—the proceeds of the sheriff sale would then be disbursed to ABS to satisfy the sums due on its second mortgage lien “as its interest may be proven upon further application to the Court[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 115). Thereafter, ABS filed its summary judgment motion and affidavit of debt as its means of proving its interest to the trial court as directed in the March 2023 Order. Based on the record before us, we conclude that ABS’ lienholder rights were clearly adjudged in this foreclosure action, thereby providing ABS with right to share in the proceeds of the sale. See Edler, 60 N.E.3d at 292.
….
Indeed, Indiana caselaw also provides that a lien of a junior mortgagee is transferred or attached to the surplus proceeds from the sale under a senior mortgage foreclosure…
Thereafter, Indiana caselaw continued to follow the principle that junior mortgagees retain their rights to surplus proceeds when their liens are displaced by a senior foreclosure…. Accordingly, ABS’ lien, as a junior mortgagee in this proceeding, transferred or attached to the remaining sheriff sale proceeds from the sale.
We now turn to a review of the statute at issue in this appeal. Sanders asserts that INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14 precluded ABS from a distribution of the remaining sheriff sale proceeds because the statute lacked any specific reference to the priority of a junior or second mortgagee’s lien and did not include any provision that such a junior lien would attach to any sheriff sale proceeds upon a foreclosure sale of a senior or first mortgagee.
We acknowledge that, in INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14, our legislature did not include an explicit reference to the disbursement of remaining sheriff sale proceeds to a junior lienholder following the sale on the foreclosure by a senior lienholder or a provision regarding the attachment of a junior mortgagee lien to the sale proceeds. However, we are not surprised by the lack of such references in INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14 because our review of the statute reveals that the statute is applicable to what occurs after a sheriff sale, i.e., the disposition or distribution of the sheriff sale proceeds. The statute is not applicable to what occurs before the sheriff sale, such as the trial court’s determination of any lienholders’ rights and the order of lien priority in the foreclosure proceeding….
Once the trial court makes the relevant determination of any lienholders’ rights and the order of lien priority, that determination will be applied to the distribution categories contained in INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14. The language of the statute sets forth the various distribution categories, and the statute sets out the order for distribution of the sheriff sale proceeds that are to be paid before there would be any possible surplus available to a “mortgage debtor” such as Sanders. See I.C. § 32-30-10-14. Indeed, one of the statutory distribution categories includes “[t]he payment of the principal due, interest, and costs[.]” I.C. § 32-30-10-14 (2). While this subsection uses the word payment in the singular, “[i]t is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that words used in their singular include also their plural.”…
We conclude that the trial court’s Appealed Order complied with INDIANA CODE § 32-30-10-14 and that the trial court did not err by granting ABS’ summary judgment motion and ordering for the remaining sheriff sale proceeds to be disbursed to ABS. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment [Footnote omitted.]
Affirmed.
Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.