LEGAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Senior Partner FROM: Associate Attorney DATE: January 10, 2026 RE: Analysis of ADA and Due Process Claims in the Wrongful Foreclosure Action Against Cody Rice-Velasquez
I. QUESTION PRESENTED
This memorandum analyzes the legal viability and strategic posture of Mr. Cody Rice-Velasquez’s claims arising from the foreclosure action initiated by Financial Center First Credit Union (FCFCU). Our analysis focuses on two primary and mutually reinforcing lines of argument: first, that the underlying foreclosure judgment is void due to a fatal defect in the service of process, and second, that the actions taken by the court, the sheriff, and the credit union constitute clear violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Whether the default judgment and subsequent writ of assistance are void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to constitutionally defective service of process under the Fourteenth Amendment and Indiana law.
- Whether the Marion Superior Court, Marion County Sheriff’s Office, and Financial Center First Credit Union violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to Mr. Rice-Velasquez, a person with documented disabilities, thereby denying him meaningful access to court proceedings and housing stability.
- Whether the combination of a void judgment and actionable ADA violations, which resulted in significant financial and emotional harm, provides substantial leverage to secure a favorable settlement, including monetary damages and full credit record remediation.
II. BRIEF ANSWER
The legal claims available to Mr. Rice-Velasquez are exceptionally strong. The case presents a rare combination of a non-waivable jurisdictional defect that renders the entire foreclosure a legal nullity, layered with distinct and well-documented civil rights violations under the ADA. This dual-track argument provides both a complete defense to the foreclosure and a powerful offensive basis for compensatory damages, creating significant leverage for a favorable negotiated resolution.
- Yes. The judgment is void because the record indicates a failure of personal service, a fundamental requirement for jurisdiction. Mr. Rice-Velasquez has affirmed under penalty of perjury that he never received lawful notice, and this jurisdictional defect renders all subsequent actions, including the sheriff’s sale and writ of assistance, legally invalid.
- Yes. All parties were put on formal notice of Mr. Rice-Velasquez’s disabilities and his request for reasonable accommodation. The subsequent failure to engage in an interactive process or modify procedures before executing the writ of assistance constitutes discrimination under Title II (for the court and sheriff) and Title III (for the credit union) of the ADA.
- Yes. The claim is legally robust, combining a non-waivable jurisdictional challenge with potent civil rights violations. The documented emotional distress and property damage, supported by case law allowing for such remedies under the ADA, create significant financial exposure for the opposing parties and justify a settlement demand for substantial monetary damages and the complete deletion of all adverse credit reporting.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Foreclosure Action and Service of Process
On or around January 16, 2025, counsel for Financial Center First Credit Union, Graham, Farrer & Wilson, P.C., initiated a foreclosure action against Cody Rice-Velasquez concerning the property located at 4817 Shadow Pointe Dr, Indianapolis, IN 46254. The court ordered that service be made by personal service.
The “Sheriff’s Return on Service of Summons” form (Exhibit G1) included in the record is incomplete. It provides options to certify service by (1) personal delivery, (2) acceptance by mail, or (3) return of mail as not accepted by the defendant. None of these sections were completed or certified. On December 10, 2025, Mr. Rice-Velasquez affirmed under penalties of perjury that he “never received lawful notice of this foreclosure action.”
Notwithstanding the apparent failure of service, a default judgment was entered against Mr. Rice-Velasquez on or around May 28, 2025. The following day, May 29, 2025, counsel for the credit union filed a Praecipe for Sheriff Sale.
B. Documented Disabilities and Requests for Accommodation
Mr. Rice-Velasquez has several documented disabilities, including ADHD, anxiety, and executive dysfunction. Medical documentation substantiating these disabilities is available as evidence.
Prior to his forcible removal, Mr. Rice-Velasquez submitted a formal “ADA TITLE II NOTICE & REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION” to the Marion Superior Court, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, and Financial Center First Credit Union Counsel. Subsequent communications regarding the window for retrieving personal property explicitly referenced the need for ADA-related coordination. These accommodations included allowances for challenges with verbal communication across floors and the use of background music for focus regulation, which are directly related to his documented disabilities.
C. Forcible Displacement and Subsequent Harm
On December 9, 2025, Mr. Rice-Velasquez was forcibly removed from his residence pursuant to the Writ of Assistance. Following his removal, he has been unsheltered, “sleeping in a vehicle in freezing temperatures.” This situation has deprived him of access to heat, stable internet, clothing, medication, and essential documents required to prepare for court proceedings.
The displacement has caused significant emotional and financial harm, including housing instability and distress over the denial of access to his property. The harm was magnified by the contrast between the well-maintained condition of his home, as documented in appraisal photographs, and the destruction that followed. After the eviction, the property was left unsecured in freezing weather. This negligence led to burst pipes, extensive water damage, and the development of mold. Furthermore, personal appliances were unplugged, causing food to spoil. Among the items lost was a mini-fridge of significant personal and sentimental value, as it was a gift from a friend who was murdered.
IV. DISCUSSION
This analysis proceeds in two parts. First, we will establish the foundational argument that the foreclosure judgment is void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction, a defect that cannot be waived and which invalidates all subsequent enforcement actions. Second, we will analyze the independent and actionable violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by the court, the sheriff, and the credit union. These two lines of argument are mutually reinforcing, creating a powerful basis for both vacating the judgment and securing substantial monetary and equitable relief for Mr. Rice-Velasquez.
A. The Foreclosure Judgment is Void for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
The argument that the judgment is void is our most powerful defensive tool. A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is a legal nullity. It has no legal force or effect and can be attacked at any time. If successful, this argument will invalidate the entire foreclosure, the sheriff’s sale, and the writ of assistance, effectively resetting the legal landscape to the pre-foreclosure status quo.
The failure to properly serve Mr. Rice-Velasquez constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has long held that due process requires “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983)). This is not a mere technicality; it is a fundamental prerequisite to a court’s exercise of authority over a defendant. As the source text “Procedural Due Process Civil” explains, a property interest created by state law—such as homeownership—cannot be taken away without constitutionally adequate process.
Here, the evidence demonstrates that such process was fatally absent. Mr. Rice-Velasquez has provided a sworn affirmation that he “never received lawful notice of this foreclosure action.” This direct testimony is corroborated by the dispositive state of the court record. The “Sheriff’s Return on Service of Summons” (Exhibit G1) is entirely blank. Under Indiana law, a valid return of service is not a mere formality; it is the necessary proof upon which the court’s power over a defendant rests. Without it, the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction was a legal impossibility, rendering the subsequent default judgment void ab initio.
Because personal jurisdiction was never established, all actions taken in reliance on that void judgment—including the Praecipe for Sheriff Sale, the sale itself, and the Writ of Assistance used to evict Mr. Rice-Velasquez—are likewise unlawful and of no legal effect. This fundamental procedural collapse not only provides a complete basis to unwind the foreclosure but also exposes the defendants’ subsequent actions as extrajudicial and tortious, magnifying the damages available for the civil rights violations discussed next.
B. Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Independent of the fatal jurisdictional defects, the actions of the Marion Superior Court, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, and FCFCU constitute clear violations of federal disability law. These violations are not merely procedural errors; they are substantive denials of civil rights that give rise to separate claims for damages and injunctive relief.
- Standard of Review under the ADA
The ADA defines disability broadly. The regulations implementing Title III state that the term “substantially limits shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage” and is “not meant to be a demanding standard.” (§ 36.105(d)(1)(i)). The primary focus is not on the extent of an individual’s impairment, but “whether public accommodations have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred.” Mr. Rice-Velasquez’s documented conditions of ADHD, anxiety, and executive dysfunction clearly fall within this protective scope.
- Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
Both Title II (covering public entities like the court and sheriff) and Title III (covering public accommodations like a credit union) require entities to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability. Mr. Rice-Velasquez placed all relevant parties on notice of his disabilities and his need for accommodation through his formal “ADA TITLE II NOTICE & REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.” In blatant disregard of this notice, all parties summarily proceeded with the eviction. This was not a procedural oversight; it was an unequivocal breach of their affirmative, non-delegable duty under federal law to engage in an interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation.
- Denial of Meaningful Access
This denial of meaningful access is not a theoretical harm; it is the direct proximate cause of the default judgment. By ignoring Mr. Rice-Velasquez’s documented need for accommodation, the opposing parties and the court system ensured he was functionally unable to navigate the very process that would lead to the loss of his home. His documented executive dysfunction, anxiety, and ADHD—when un-accommodated—directly impaired his ability to process, prioritize, and respond to the legal threat. As the case log confirms, the “lack of accommodation compounded confusion, stress, and inability to respond or protect property.” The failure to engage in the interactive process was therefore the direct cause of his inability to mount a defense, which in turn resulted in the default judgment. This reframes the ADA claim from a separate harm into the central reason the jurisdictional defect was never challenged in time.
C. Availability of Monetary Damages for ADA Violations and Resulting Harms
The ADA violations and subsequent negligence directly caused tangible financial and emotional harm, for which Mr. Rice-Velasquez is entitled to compensation. These damages are not speculative; they are well-documented and supported by federal case law.
- Compensatory Damages for Emotional Distress
Courts have held that compensatory damages, including for emotional distress, are available for intentional violations of the ADA. In Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007), the court reasoned that because discrimination foreseeably causes emotional distress, such damages are available to make the plaintiff whole. The case log for Mr. Rice-Velasquez documents “significant physical pain and depletion” and “heightened stress, vulnerability, and distress” resulting from his displacement. Critically, it also documents the specific emotional harm stemming from the loss of a mini-fridge that held deep sentimental value as a gift from a murdered friend. This provides a compelling, fact-specific basis for a substantial emotional distress award.
- Damages for Post-Eviction Property Destruction
The harm did not end with the eviction. The failure of the party taking possession to secure the premises in freezing weather constitutes negligence. The resulting burst pipes, water damage, and mold were foreseeable consequences of this breach of duty. Furthermore, the act of unplugging personal appliances, leading to the spoilage of food, can be framed as an act of trespass to chattels or conversion. These post-judgment torts are independent of the void judgment and ADA claims, providing an additional layer of liability and strengthening the overall claim for financial damages.
D. Strategic Posture for Settlement Negotiations
The cumulative weight of the void judgment claim and the well-documented ADA violations creates a formidable negotiating position. The void judgment argument functions as a “kill switch” on the foreclosure itself, threatening to unwind the entire transaction and expose the credit union and its counsel to liability for wrongful foreclosure. Simultaneously, the ADA claims create an offensive basis for a significant damages award that includes emotional distress, property loss, and attorney’s fees. This combination of a complete defense and a potent offense gives us extraordinary leverage.
Based on the strategic goals outlined in the case planning documents, a comprehensive settlement should include the following terms:
- Monetary Compensation: A cash payment in the range of 80,000–100,000 to compensate for emotional distress, property damage, and displacement costs.
- Credit Record Remediation: A binding agreement for the full deletion of the FCFCU tradeline from all credit reporting agencies.
- Waiver of Deficiency: A full waiver of any alleged deficiency balance from the foreclosure.
- Global Release and Confidentiality: A mutual release of all claims and a confidentiality agreement.
The substantial legal and financial risk faced by the opposing parties makes a global settlement on these terms a highly advantageous outcome for them. The alternative—litigating a case with a non-waivable jurisdictional defect and clear evidence of civil rights violations—presents the risk of a much larger judgment against them at trial.
V. CONCLUSION
The foreclosure judgment against Mr. Rice-Velasquez is void due to a fatal jurisdictional defect in the service of process. This defect renders all subsequent enforcement actions, including the sheriff’s sale and eviction, unlawful. Separately and additionally, the Marion Superior Court, Marion County Sheriff’s Office, and Financial Center First Credit Union engaged in clear, actionable violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations after being put on notice of Mr. Rice-Velasquez’s disabilities. These combined claims provide overwhelming leverage. I recommend we proceed immediately with the preparation and submission of a comprehensive settlement demand letter that leverages these powerful claims to achieve our client’s primary objectives of substantial monetary compensation and full credit record restoration.