In re Lamplite Ltd. Partnership, Bankruptcy No. 90-04330-BKC-JJB
| Decision Date | 15 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | 90-04327-BKC-JJB,90-04329-BKC-JJB,Adv. No. 90-0286-BKC-JJB to 90-0290-BKC-JJB.,90-04326-BKC-JJB and 90-04328-BKC-JJB,Bankruptcy No. 90-04330-BKC-JJB |
| Citation | 121 BR 575 |
| Parties | In re LAMPLITE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Debtor. WEST POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Jack Kemp, Secretary, et al., Defendants. In re PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Debtor. WEST POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Jack Kemp, Secretary, et al., Defendants. In re NORTHWEST VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Debtor. WEST POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Jack Kemp, Secretary, et al., Defendants. In re WEST POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Debtor. WEST POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Jack Kemp, Secretary, et al., Defendants. In re GRANDVIEW HILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Debtor. WEST POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Jack Kemp, Secretary, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Gerald A. Rimmel, Thomas M. Blumenthal, Clayton, Mo., for debtors/plaintiffs.
Randall Cahill, Asst. U.S. Atty., Donald F. Flint, St. Louis Office Region VII, St. Louis, Mo., for U.S. Dept. Housing & Urban Dev.
Lloyd A. Palans, St. Louis, Mo.
Carl J. Spector, St. Louis, Mo., for Gannon Management Co.
Alan Goldstein, Goldstein and Price, St. Louis, Mo., for Mellon Financial Services Corp. and Mellon Financial Services Corporation # 9.
CONSOLIDATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS
At Saint Louis, in this District, this 15th day of November, 1990.
The expedited hearing upon the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was called on October 11, 1990. Counsel for the Debtors appeared and presented oral argument upon the record in support of the motion. Counsel for the Government/Defendants appeared and presented oral argument in opposition to the request for injunctive relief. Upon consideration of the record as a whole, including a review of the case authority presented at this hearing, the Court announced its determinations and orders from the bench. By agreement of the parties, these five adversary proceedings are consolidated for all purposes to the extent possible.
The question to be considered initially deals with the extent to which the Government National Mortgage Association ("GNMA") is subject to the injunctive powers of the Federal law. The operative language of Section 1723a(a) of Title 12 of the United States Code, which refers to the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity for certain agencies including GNMA is as follows:
. . . . shall have the power to . . . sue and be sued. . . . but that no attachment, injunction, or other similar process, mesne or final shall be issued against the property of in this case GNMA or against in this case GNMA with respect to its property.
As the Court has interpreted the pleadings here, the Debtors are requesting injunctive relief against GNMA and not against the property of GNMA, and not against GNMA with respect to its property. The statutory text quoted above appears to provide a limited range of immunity for agencies such as GNMA. "Unfortunately, the range of immunity and the purpose for its provision is not made clear from either the text of the statute or its legislative history." Orrego v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 701 F.Supp. 1384, 1398 (N.D.Ill., 1988).
However, in deciding the issues here, the Bankruptcy Court has been persuaded by the reasoning and rationale set out in the cases cited by the Debtors in this matter, specifically, Fox v. HUD, 532 F.Supp. 540 (D.C.Pa.1982) and Orrego v. HUD, 701 F.Supp. 1384. At Section 1723a(a) of Title 12, Congress appears to have intended to waive the protections of the doctrine of sovereign immunity with respect to GNMA in certain situations, and limit the anti-injunction provisions of the statute with respect to GNMA and similarly situated agencies. These Courts have reasoned that Congress intended the anti-injunction provisions to extend only to in rem actions, and did not intend a greater immunity for GNMA in this case than that which is available to other federal agencies. In referring to Section 1723a(a), the Orrego Court stated that Congress' reaction to earlier judicial holdings did not grant complete immunity from actions grounded in federal statutory law, but instead provided for a limited range of...
To continue reading
Request your trial