First Wisconsin Nat. Bank of Milwaukee v. Grandlich Development Corp., 77-2114

Decision Date04 January 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-2114,77-2114
Citation565 F.2d 879
PartiesFIRST WISCONSIN NATIONAL BANK OF MILWAUKEE, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRANDLICH DEVELOPMENT CORP., etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

R. Benjamine Reid, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Huber R. Parsons, Jr., Robert Paul, Miami, Fla., S. E. Keane, David E. Beckwith, Robert A. DuPuy, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b) motion brought to effectively reinstate this case after dismissal by orders upon which the time for appeal has run. Plaintiff-appellee, First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, sued defendants-appellants Grandlich Development Corporation and Fisher Development Corporation, along with other defendants, to foreclose certain mortgages. Grandlich and Fisher counterclaimed against the plaintiff, alleging that plaintiff had charged usurious interest. In this proceeding, they are trying to revive this counterclaim.

After the foreclosure complaint and counterclaim were filed in this case, both Grandlich and Fisher filed petitions for arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act in the Southern District of Florida. The district court, apparently noting that the bankruptcy petition stayed the foreclosure proceedings against Grandlich and Fisher, dismissed them from these foreclosure proceedings. Later, sua sponte, the court dismissed the entire action for failure of the remaining parties to follow pretrial requirements. Although the dismissal as parties effectively dismissed the counterclaim of Grandlich and Fisher, they did not appeal.

Subsequently in January of 1977, they filed another action in district court, asserting all the allegations contained in their original counterclaim in order to preserve their damage rights under the National Bank Act. Apparently recognizing a statute of limitations problem in the later suit, in February of 1977 they moved under Rule 60(b) to amend or vacate both the order dismissing them as parties from the foreclosure action and the later order dismissing the entire action. The district court denied their motion and the defendants appealed. We find no merit in defendants' contentions on appeal and affirm the district court's order.

Defendants first assert that the filing of the petition in bankruptcy automatically divested the district court of jurisdiction to enter the orders dismissing them as parties and dismissing the foreclosure action. Defendants relied upon Rule 11-44, Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, in this claim. Rule 11-44, standing alone, does not operate to remove the district court's jurisdiction. Rule 11-44 provides that the petition shall "operate as a stay of the commencement or the continuation of any court or other proceeding against the debtor, or the enforcement of any judgment against him, or of any act or the commencement or continuation of any court proceeding to enforce any lien against his property . . . ." Whether or not the district court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Grandlich and Fisher as parties to the foreclosure suit, an order that could in no way prejudice them, it did have jurisdiction to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Steelcase, Inc. v. Delwood Furniture Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 8, 1978
    ...of his sound discretion to grant the motion. Edwards v. Joyner, 5 Cir. 1978, 566 F.2d 960; First Wisconsin Nat. Bank of Milwaukee v. Grandlich Development Corp., 5 Cir. 1978, 565 F.2d 879. III. Although there is a statutory presumption of validity which attaches to patents passing the scrut......
  • Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 90-6057
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 2, 1991
    ...stayed, while same-case proceedings arising out claims asserted by the plaintiff are stayed. See First Wisconsin National Bank v. Grandlich Development Corp., 565 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir.1978) (automatic stay did not bar district court's dismissal of debtor's counterclaim in action originall......
  • Chrysler Credit Corp. v. BJM, Jr., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 14, 1993
    ...of St. Croix Condominium Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp., 682 F.2d 446, 448 (3rd Cir.1982); First Wisconsin National Bank v. Grandlich Development Corp., 565 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir.1978). (emphasis in Instantly, the record reflects that in January, 1992, B.J.M., Jr., Inc. filed for protecti......
  • In re Porter
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Third Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • July 18, 2007
    ...while same-case proceedings arising out of claims asserted by the plaintiff are stayed. See First Wisconsin National Bank v. Grandlich Development Corp., 565 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir.1978) (automatic stay did not bar district court's dismissal of debtor's counterclaim in action originally bro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT