Appellant-defendant Alicia Bonilla (Alicia) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff Commercial Services of Perry, Inc. (“Perry”), as successor in interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which was the successor in interest to Industrial National Bank. Alicia raises a number of arguments, which we restate as follows: (1) the trial court’s judgment that Alicia is liable for the mortgages in question is clearly erroneous, and (2) the trial court’s order of damages pursuant to the promissory notes is clearly erroneous.
Conclusion (slip op. at 14): The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 10, 14): Because the trial court’s judgment is sustainable based upon its finding that Alicia failed to rebut the presumption that she signed the mortgages, we need not address the trial court’s additional findings that Alicia ratified the mortgages and failed to comply with Indiana Trial Rule 9.2(B) . . . Although we do not have the precise terms of the promissory notes in the record, the only reasonable inference to draw from this evidence is that the failure to make a single payment on the notes in over twenty years is an event of default.