Evanson v. Northwest Holding Company

• Decision Date: 29 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. 18319.,18319.
• Citation: 368 F.2d 531
• Parties: Gordon EVANSON et al., Appellants, v. NORTHWEST HOLDING COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

368 F.2d 531 (1966)

Gordon EVANSON et al., Appellants, v. NORTHWEST HOLDING COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, Appellee.

No. 18319.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

November 15, 1966.

Rehearing Denied November 29, 1966.

Paul Dan Rosso, pro se.

Joe Walters, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee. No oral arguement was made or brief was filed on behalf of appellee.

Before VOGEL, Chief Judge, MATTHES, Circuit Judge, and DUNCAN, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This "protracted and unhappy litigation" began in 1961 as an unlawful detainer action in Municipal Court in the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. At all times and in all courts the appellants have spurned the suggestions that they employ counsel and have insisted on appearing on a pro se basis. For details regarding the litigation in the Minnesota courts, see Northwest Holding Company v. Evanson, 1963, 265 Minn. 562, 122 N.W.2d 596. In dismissing that appeal, the Supreme Court of Minnesota, after patiently reciting facts from the record, stated at page 602 of 122 N.W.2d:

"This has been unusual and unfortunate litigation. The appellants have brought on themselves great hardship, severe economic loss, and needless anguish for which they now appear to have no remedy. They have stubbornly refused to acknowledge any fault in their own conduct despite two manifestly proper judgments against appellant Paul Rosso arising out of an assault and a breach of contract. In both proceedings he was represented by counsel who apparently could do little more than mitigate the damages he invited by his own wrongdoing. Appellants have refused to face reality or heed persistent admonitions to retain counsel. From the record it appears entirely likely that these premises were indeed the appellants\' homestead and as such should have been exempt from execution had they acted diligently to assert their rights. Although in good conscience it might have been proper for these creditors to satisfy their judgments out of the Central Avenue property, overriding public policy would have prevented it. However, at most, they were entitled to only $8,100. Nevertheless, by levying execution and securing a decree of registration, William Holmes has obtained real estate worth approximately $35,000 to satisfy claims amounting to less than one-fourth of that amount. Holmes\' acquisition has been euphemistically described as a `windfall.\' It is difficult to draw the exact line between what is the legitimate assertion of a client\'s rights and what amounts to an unfair overreaching of his adversary. Wherever that line may be, the gross injustice which has resulted from exploiting the improvidence of these appellants has brought little credit to the legal profession."

Subsequent to the adverse determinations by the Supreme Court of Minnesota this action was commenced by the losing parties in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, to "Review the Judgment of the Minnesota Supreme Court entered 21 June 1963; and Review the ORDER denying the Motions for Enlargement of Time with Affidavit for ...